My third panel discussion was titled "State of Emergency: Homelessness in LA." There were two panelists (there were supposed to be 3, but one didn't show).
The following short biographies were taken from the LA Times Festival of Books website:
Marqueece Harris-Dawson is an American politician and incumbent member of the Los Angeles City Council, representing District 8 of western South L.A. He took office on July 1, 2015.
Ben Henwood is a licensed clinical social worker who has served as an administrator, clinician and researcher for organizations serving adults experiencing homelessness and serious health conditions. He helped start and served as the clinical director for Pathways to Housing, Inc., a Housing First agency in Philadelphia, where he also served as the principal investigator of clinical research.
The following are my notes from the panel discussion. There are potential misinterpretations to what I heard so take that into consideration.
Hemwood. "Housing First" is a programmatic approach. It moves individuals from the street to housing along with a wrap around approach. "Housing First" is a programmatic innovation that turned quickly into policy due to research. To succeed, it needs a sustained effort.
There is something dehumanizing about homelessness.
Tax subsidies for home owners is greater than what is provided for affordable housing. It costs more money to leave people on the street then to house them. Subsidized apartments is a money saver.
Evidence is based on actual situations such as a program in five cities in Canada. Housing First model gets people into apartments in communities without too much oversight. There are two ways to do it: designated housing and a scattered approach. The scattered model is better, but having designated housing is still an effective model.
Scattered is the approach adopted in Europe.
There is an uptick in urban areas where housing is not affordable.
There are a number of different ways to deal with the homeless issue.
Harris-Dawson. Los Angeles has a comprehensive plan with 57 different strategies built into it. It does not leave out any strategic review. The strategies cover a mix of reasons for homelessness: drugs, physical abuse, mental illness. Also, applies a "no wrong door" approach. This means that anyone in city government can assist the homelessness in finding a home: police, librarians. To implement this plan, the city needs to pursue more housing. The city is trying to figure out the money. The city will need to ask the voters for new revenue streams. The plan is to start at $100 million, but can't currently find that money to start the program. The need is $1.8 billion over ten years. The city is attempting to see what can pass: fees and taxes. Polls indicate that taxes applied to someone else is always a popular tax. Fees are popular, but bonds and a sales tax is not. There is an inverse between what will raise the most money and the popularity of that funding. The city needs something that hits everyone.
An effort ten years ago failed because voters said "no" to the resources. They said no when the economy was booming. Activists are playing a bigger role this time. We have less homeless now, but there are tents in strategic locations, which makes it more noticeable. Activist provide the tents that make it more noticeable.
Regarding recent clean-up of the streets by the city. There is no protection of property. The city is required to provide storage. Courts will play a role vs the new comprehensive strategic plan.
Los Angeles has a demand for housing that is low density. Developments get blocked due to environmental concerns, traffic. We don't build enough housing. Scarcity is enforced in Los Angeles. So Cal has turned housing into an investment unlike much of the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment