Guest Commentary: Addressing the Issue of Homelessness in Davis

why are we trying to guarantee housing for drunk homeless people when i know of a few students who also “wish to be housed”

also, why? you make it sound like we have solutions for regular homeless individualswho are motivated enough, but now you want to secure jobs for chronic drunks when regular students fight tooth and nail to get them, with little promise of them being an eventuality

you also insinuate that we should share a large chunk of the spending for it, and no, it’a dead end.

why are we trying to guarantee housing for drunk homeless people when i know of a few students who also “wish to be housed”

also, why? you make it sound like we have solutions for regular homeless individualswho are motivated enough, but now you want to secure jobs for chronic drunks when regular students fight tooth and nail to get them, with little promise of them being an eventuality

you also insinuate that we should share a large chunk of the spending for it, and no, it’a dead end.

depravisite said… “why are we trying to guarantee housing for drunk homeless people when i know of a few students who also ‘wish to be housed'”

Are those the same students that I see driving BMW and Lexus cars to school? Yeah, wow, those poor kids! I had a bike when I was a student and I still use it.

depravisite said… “why are we trying to guarantee housing for drunk homeless people when i know of a few students who also ‘wish to be housed'”

Are those the same students that I see driving BMW and Lexus cars to school? Yeah, wow, those poor kids! I had a bike when I was a student and I still use it.

I guess I missed something here, the proposal called explicitly for people to be sober in this facility:

“A major requirement for placement in this and other long-term housing programs in California like Davis Community Meals is the need for clients to be sober and if a client is suffering from a mental illness, the illness must be stable and treated with medication.”

I guess I missed something here, the proposal called explicitly for people to be sober in this facility:

“A major requirement for placement in this and other long-term housing programs in California like Davis Community Meals is the need for clients to be sober and if a client is suffering from a mental illness, the illness must be stable and treated with medication.”

A valuable guest commentary that attempts to focus attention on this
“human condition” that should not be ignored as we go about our busy days.
My own feeling is that a lot of this work and support can come from our religious institutions as a living testament to their beliefs.

A valuable guest commentary that attempts to focus attention on this
“human condition” that should not be ignored as we go about our busy days.
My own feeling is that a lot of this work and support can come from our religious institutions as a living testament to their beliefs.

yeah, they’re ALL driving luxury cars! every one of them! none of them had their leases run out without having sucessfully found another place to live.

doug – that was a description of pre-existing programs in addition to the cold weather one, which is specifically made to feed and temporarily shelter those who AREN’T medicated or sober.

what he’s proposing is that since there are pre-existing plans for the homeless who arent sloshed or crazy, that such a program should be set up to guarantee housing and jobs for them. guarantee them.
i’d like to be guaranteed that but i’m not homeless or crazy or carrying a bottle of jack with me.

i mean this all sounds like the “socially right thing to do, man” but isnt there at least a nagging thought on how pointless and frankly wasteful this is?

yeah, they’re ALL driving luxury cars! every one of them! none of them had their leases run out without having sucessfully found another place to live.

doug – that was a description of pre-existing programs in addition to the cold weather one, which is specifically made to feed and temporarily shelter those who AREN’T medicated or sober.

what he’s proposing is that since there are pre-existing plans for the homeless who arent sloshed or crazy, that such a program should be set up to guarantee housing and jobs for them. guarantee them.
i’d like to be guaranteed that but i’m not homeless or crazy or carrying a bottle of jack with me.

i mean this all sounds like the “socially right thing to do, man” but isnt there at least a nagging thought on how pointless and frankly wasteful this is?

So it’s better to have people living on the streets in that condition?

So it’s better to have people living on the streets in that condition?

The Cold Weather shelter on 5th & D Street was supported by the neighborhood even though the shelter would allow people who arrived under the influence. The neighbors had been experiencing people camping, drinking, loudly interacting in the neighborhood, specifically at the Community Church, for years. It had been a continuing problem. The shelter provided a way for this population to be inside, fed, and have a period of 10-12 hours where they would not be using and get a night of decent sleep. The neighborhood actually experienced less disruption with the shelter in place. The shelter has been a very good neighbor. The health benefits – both physical & mental -to the people staying there could be studied. The Cold Weather shelter could be the first step to helping these people return to a more standard way of life. Though there will always be a number of people who choose to live houseless, no matter how many services are provided.

The Cold Weather shelter on 5th & D Street was supported by the neighborhood even though the shelter would allow people who arrived under the influence. The neighbors had been experiencing people camping, drinking, loudly interacting in the neighborhood, specifically at the Community Church, for years. It had been a continuing problem. The shelter provided a way for this population to be inside, fed, and have a period of 10-12 hours where they would not be using and get a night of decent sleep. The neighborhood actually experienced less disruption with the shelter in place. The shelter has been a very good neighbor. The health benefits – both physical & mental -to the people staying there could be studied. The Cold Weather shelter could be the first step to helping these people return to a more standard way of life. Though there will always be a number of people who choose to live houseless, no matter how many services are provided.

Richard Ciprian writes: “A condition could be established that homeless individuals being housed must look for work in at least six months from the date of being housed.”

Assuming a homeless beneficiary is able bodied and of a reasonably sound mind, I think a better idea would be to require the person to perform some community services in order to receive the benefit. For example, clean up graffiti, weed public gardens, pick up garbage, etc. Once the service was done for the day, the housing would be there in exchange.

As I wrote in my column, this week, we approach housing for the poor from the wrong side of the equation. The problem is not a lack of housing for the poor: the problem is a lack of money in the hands of the poor. We don’t grow public sheep so the poor can eat mutton; we give them food-stamps (albeit not enough).

“Members of the homeless suffering from severe mental illness that we get off the street and house in such units could be matched up with social service advocates that could assist such members of the homeless population in applying for social security benefits.”

My opinion is that we should treat individuals with ‘severe mental illness’ as dependent children. They should never be left on the street, never left to fend for themselves. Even if it meant locking them up, though not in prisons with criminals, where they could be forced to take medications, would have adequate shelter and food and so on, that would be greatly preferable to allowing these poor souls to suffer on the streets. We make a terrible mistake in treating them like emancipated adults who are responsible for their own behavior and welfare. It sickens me when I hear of cases where someone with schizophrenia harms himself or others because he “chose to stop taking his meds.” He should not be given that choice. He is mentally ill and ought not be given that kind of responsibility.

“An option to subsidizing the cost of rent for our homeless in the city of Davis could be via establishing a community fund to subsidize the rent of a homeless person for a period of six months.”

This is not a bad idea. However, I believe we (as a country) would be better off if the federal government, which ultimately funds all of our public housing and even subsidizes the development of a lot of middle-class “private” housing, would give the money (in housing stamps) directly to poor people (in exchange for public service), the way it gives them food stamps for nutrition.

Richard Ciprian writes: “A condition could be established that homeless individuals being housed must look for work in at least six months from the date of being housed.”

Assuming a homeless beneficiary is able bodied and of a reasonably sound mind, I think a better idea would be to require the person to perform some community services in order to receive the benefit. For example, clean up graffiti, weed public gardens, pick up garbage, etc. Once the service was done for the day, the housing would be there in exchange.

As I wrote in my column, this week, we approach housing for the poor from the wrong side of the equation. The problem is not a lack of housing for the poor: the problem is a lack of money in the hands of the poor. We don’t grow public sheep so the poor can eat mutton; we give them food-stamps (albeit not enough).

“Members of the homeless suffering from severe mental illness that we get off the street and house in such units could be matched up with social service advocates that could assist such members of the homeless population in applying for social security benefits.”

My opinion is that we should treat individuals with ‘severe mental illness’ as dependent children. They should never be left on the street, never left to fend for themselves. Even if it meant locking them up, though not in prisons with criminals, where they could be forced to take medications, would have adequate shelter and food and so on, that would be greatly preferable to allowing these poor souls to suffer on the streets. We make a terrible mistake in treating them like emancipated adults who are responsible for their own behavior and welfare. It sickens me when I hear of cases where someone with schizophrenia harms himself or others because he “chose to stop taking his meds.” He should not be given that choice. He is mentally ill and ought not be given that kind of responsibility.

“An option to subsidizing the cost of rent for our homeless in the city of Davis could be via establishing a community fund to subsidize the rent of a homeless person for a period of six months.”

This is not a bad idea. However, I believe we (as a country) would be better off if the federal government, which ultimately funds all of our public housing and even subsidizes the development of a lot of middle-class “private” housing, would give the money (in housing stamps) directly to poor people (in exchange for public service), the way it gives them food stamps for nutrition.

doug, i’m not for throwing money at it so that it may or may not have any effect.

doug, i’m not for throwing money at it so that it may or may not have any effect.

lol house stamps

lol house stamps

depravisite: I guess I’m wondering how much we pay now having to deal with people living on the streets. We’ve had to alter parks policies to get people out of parks. We have enforcement costs. We have at times incarceration costs. I don’t know the answer, but I like throwing ideas on the table.

depravisite: I guess I’m wondering how much we pay now having to deal with people living on the streets. We’ve had to alter parks policies to get people out of parks. We have enforcement costs. We have at times incarceration costs. I don’t know the answer, but I like throwing ideas on the table.

well spending money on a program that has the likely effect of being partly sucessful so there would be that to fund plus the rest that get incarcerated isnt much brighter.
enforcement costs? are there special “bussing homeless people out of the county” stipulations that would increase how much we pay the police to do what they do? they troll around the city bored out their minds and get paid the same.
i dont think legislating the homeless out of sight is a good solution and think any money directed to that is wasteful as well.

well spending money on a program that has the likely effect of being partly sucessful so there would be that to fund plus the rest that get incarcerated isnt much brighter.
enforcement costs? are there special “bussing homeless people out of the county” stipulations that would increase how much we pay the police to do what they do? they troll around the city bored out their minds and get paid the same.
i dont think legislating the homeless out of sight is a good solution and think any money directed to that is wasteful as well.

The French are considering adding
housing as a basic right of their citizenry along with health care.
Viva La France

The French are considering adding
housing as a basic right of their citizenry along with health care.
Viva La France

Lost in this discussion about Homeless-ness in Davis is the fact that the City of Davis owns every square foot of space in town.

If you’re truly homeless in Davis
-and there are a lot of posers and professional bullshit artists running around PRETENDING to be caught up in this situation, you’re bound to run afoul of the Powers-That-Be at City Hall, sooner or later.

For years, the city Fathers have a nasty habit of lumping the True, Unsheltered Homeless people of Davis into the same social category known as the “Low Income.”

When this happens, the people who truly need the city’s help the most get lost in (yet another) needless and totally avoidable bureaucratic shuffle. In other words, since Homeless people are at the bottom of the barrel, no one pays very much attention to them. That’s just the Way It Is, here in jolly old Davisville.

The debacle surrounding the Eleanor Roosevelt Housing Project is a classic example of what we’re talking about, here. The developers who are running this (latest) “low Income” housing scheme fail to mention about how according to current guidelines, it would take an unsheltered homeless person over one-and-one half years just to be able to “apply” for an “application” to rent a unit in this project.

Everyone in town knows that this extended delay in acquiring a roof over one’s head is an inexcusable slap in the face to the local Homeless people; but no one at City Hall has the balls -or the brains, to admit it in pubilc.

Like we say, the True Unsheltered homeless People of Davis keep getting lost in the bureaucratic shuffle.

Here’s how the Merry-Go-Round works: the City offers Homeless People (us) a few beds in a couple of “Cold Weather Shelters” for a few days at a time every winter. But the city doesn’t do much of anything really, -beyond this, to attack the real root-causes of Homeless-ness.

When the weather warms up every April, (April the 15th, to be exact) the City closes the Cold Weather Shelter down, and the Homeless people are right back where they started from, -again, on the street.

Lost in this discussion about Homeless-ness in Davis is the fact that the City of Davis owns every square foot of space in town.

If you’re truly homeless in Davis
-and there are a lot of posers and professional bullshit artists running around PRETENDING to be caught up in this situation, you’re bound to run afoul of the Powers-That-Be at City Hall, sooner or later.

For years, the city Fathers have a nasty habit of lumping the True, Unsheltered Homeless people of Davis into the same social category known as the “Low Income.”

When this happens, the people who truly need the city’s help the most get lost in (yet another) needless and totally avoidable bureaucratic shuffle. In other words, since Homeless people are at the bottom of the barrel, no one pays very much attention to them. That’s just the Way It Is, here in jolly old Davisville.

The debacle surrounding the Eleanor Roosevelt Housing Project is a classic example of what we’re talking about, here. The developers who are running this (latest) “low Income” housing scheme fail to mention about how according to current guidelines, it would take an unsheltered homeless person over one-and-one half years just to be able to “apply” for an “application” to rent a unit in this project.

Everyone in town knows that this extended delay in acquiring a roof over one’s head is an inexcusable slap in the face to the local Homeless people; but no one at City Hall has the balls -or the brains, to admit it in pubilc.

Like we say, the True Unsheltered homeless People of Davis keep getting lost in the bureaucratic shuffle.

Here’s how the Merry-Go-Round works: the City offers Homeless People (us) a few beds in a couple of “Cold Weather Shelters” for a few days at a time every winter. But the city doesn’t do much of anything really, -beyond this, to attack the real root-causes of Homeless-ness.

When the weather warms up every April, (April the 15th, to be exact) the City closes the Cold Weather Shelter down, and the Homeless people are right back where they started from, -again, on the street.

Dear Readers,
It is wonderful to see that the commentary has generated active dialogue around how best to deal with homelessness concerns in the community. I argue the point that as fellow human beings we have a moral charge ; a categorical imperative according to Kant; that we will onto others as we will would will onto ourselves. In this case, if we seek housing for ourselves, why not for the people in the community who are marginalized?

A commonly held stigma is that homelessness is caused because a person chooses to be, and the person abuses the illicit substance. Society argues that if a person consumes a substance and gets himself into homelessness, why should society have to bare the costs of housing a person who chooses to be homeless? It is rediculous according to a person making the assertion.

I argue that the reason for poverty and ineqaulity in our country is very sociological and it begins in early youth for many individuals. Maybe a person who was homeless lived in a house where the individuals parents did not provide a good role model for the individual and perhaps the individual who will become homeless did not appreciate the value of an education. Say the individual was laid off from work. The individual will lose housing and the attempt for the individual to go to school will be difficult because the individual has not been conditioned to attend college. The increase in homelessness in our country has not coincided with an increase in homelessnesss but the role of alcohol and illicit substances is there. I guess what I am saying is that why a person is homeless is complex and it has both psychological, sociological and economical underpinnings.

Homelessness will always be with us as long as ineqaulities are present in our society. The important thing for us to do is to deal with the problem of homelessness as much as we can with available resources. A model which is pretty effective in our country is the housing first model where we house our homeless first and then assist them in finding social services.

In San Francisco, they house there homeless and assist them with what they need. It is pretty effective. From personal observation I have seen homeless people who may drink or use a substance actually work hard for there income through canning. Some of the homeless people have active talents that can be applied to job occupations if we just worked with them. Some homeless individuals want to access detox but cant seem to get passed waiting lists imposed by the county.

The reason I in the article only crafted my solution to the mentally ill, and active substance abuser was because these individuals only are being served by a cold winter shelter. There is really not enough help for this population but I would be open to housing every homeless person without a fixed income- given that we could get them on a fixed income either with Social Security or employment opportunities and detox. Every case is a person by person basis.

As for homeless students, there are a few students at UCD that sleep in there cars. While UCD has a affluent student population, UCD also admits some students who are first generation college students. It is difficult for these students sometimes to afford housing and tuition; the only practical solution is to be homeless. I would admit that the university should undertake in thier student life census why students are homeless and deal with it at a university level. In my mind it is proabably easier to rid homelessness at UCD than in Davis.

I agree the Cold Weather Shelter has been wonderful for the health and the mind of the homeless served.

In my mind we as a community could if we had the political will, serve the mentally ill, and addidcted homeless individual who needs help to get on there feet. We have enough resources in the community to do so. We do not have to place all the burden on the city and social service providers. We ahve to deal with the problem as a community.

Dear Readers,
It is wonderful to see that the commentary has generated active dialogue around how best to deal with homelessness concerns in the community. I argue the point that as fellow human beings we have a moral charge ; a categorical imperative according to Kant; that we will onto others as we will would will onto ourselves. In this case, if we seek housing for ourselves, why not for the people in the community who are marginalized?

A commonly held stigma is that homelessness is caused because a person chooses to be, and the person abuses the illicit substance. Society argues that if a person consumes a substance and gets himself into homelessness, why should society have to bare the costs of housing a person who chooses to be homeless? It is rediculous according to a person making the assertion.

I argue that the reason for poverty and ineqaulity in our country is very sociological and it begins in early youth for many individuals. Maybe a person who was homeless lived in a house where the individuals parents did not provide a good role model for the individual and perhaps the individual who will become homeless did not appreciate the value of an education. Say the individual was laid off from work. The individual will lose housing and the attempt for the individual to go to school will be difficult because the individual has not been conditioned to attend college. The increase in homelessness in our country has not coincided with an increase in homelessnesss but the role of alcohol and illicit substances is there. I guess what I am saying is that why a person is homeless is complex and it has both psychological, sociological and economical underpinnings.

Homelessness will always be with us as long as ineqaulities are present in our society. The important thing for us to do is to deal with the problem of homelessness as much as we can with available resources. A model which is pretty effective in our country is the housing first model where we house our homeless first and then assist them in finding social services.

In San Francisco, they house there homeless and assist them with what they need. It is pretty effective. From personal observation I have seen homeless people who may drink or use a substance actually work hard for there income through canning. Some of the homeless people have active talents that can be applied to job occupations if we just worked with them. Some homeless individuals want to access detox but cant seem to get passed waiting lists imposed by the county.

The reason I in the article only crafted my solution to the mentally ill, and active substance abuser was because these individuals only are being served by a cold winter shelter. There is really not enough help for this population but I would be open to housing every homeless person without a fixed income- given that we could get them on a fixed income either with Social Security or employment opportunities and detox. Every case is a person by person basis.

As for homeless students, there are a few students at UCD that sleep in there cars. While UCD has a affluent student population, UCD also admits some students who are first generation college students. It is difficult for these students sometimes to afford housing and tuition; the only practical solution is to be homeless. I would admit that the university should undertake in thier student life census why students are homeless and deal with it at a university level. In my mind it is proabably easier to rid homelessness at UCD than in Davis.

I agree the Cold Weather Shelter has been wonderful for the health and the mind of the homeless served.

In my mind we as a community could if we had the political will, serve the mentally ill, and addidcted homeless individual who needs help to get on there feet. We have enough resources in the community to do so. We do not have to place all the burden on the city and social service providers. We ahve to deal with the problem as a community.

Finding permanent housing for individuals who are homeless and have no source of income is a very difficult problem to solve on a sustainable dignified basis. It takes a lot of money and neighborhood acceptance.

The economics of developing “free” housing is very formidable.

If an individual is to be housed in a modest one bedroom apartment (like those at my Eleanor Roosevelt Circle and Cesar Chavez Plaza projects), it costs approximately $400 per month just to pay the operating costs for that unit (on-site staff, insurance, garbage collection, city water/sewer fees, maintenance, taxes, accounting etc.).

That is just for the operating costs. It does not include the costs of building the project or any social services.

Assuming that you can get 100% of the construction funding from the government or private charities, and they do not charge any mandatory interest or repayment of the principal, then you would only have to find the $400 per month per unit. I have never been able to find 100% of the funding under such terms for any of my housing projects in the past 22 years. My two current projects come the closest, where we have cobbled together approximately 95% of the funding from these types of sources.

35% of the units in my two projects will rent for $226 per month. These are reserved,(by state regulation) for disabled households who are at risk of homelessness (by the state’s definition). How can we rent these for $226 per month if it actually costs us $400 per month to cover the operating costs?

By renting the other 65% of the units at higher rents, we are able to cover the missing $174 for those $226 per month units. If instead of providing 35% of the units at $226 per month, we charged the much higher rents on 95% of the units, then perhaps we could offer 5% of the units rent free. Of course then there would be no units at $226 for the disabled individuals who are getting their $800 or so monthly government support. Should we do the 5% or the 35%? Without a monthly cash subsidy from somewhere outside of the project, you can not do both.

And then of course, where do you build this housing? Recently we had a very difficult struggle getting approval to build our Cesar Chavez Plaza project on Olive Drive. Some people, including our Mayor Greenwald, felt that it was not appropriate to build such a “facility” so near to the downtown. And we were simply proposing to build housing where 35% of the units would rent for $226 per month. What if we had done a project where 100% of the units had been offered for free to homeless individuals? And try proposing it anywhere else in town.

If we had tried to build a project with smaller units instead of 600 square foot one bedroom units) and we had required two to four people per unit, then we could have lowered some of the operating costs, including maintenance and insurance. But try getting that approved anywhere in the city. And of course someone would be complaining that we were treating the residents poorly, forcing them to live in overcrowded housing.

It is a tough problem. But I would be happy to participate in further problem solving discussions.

As many of you know, the city recently formed a committee to revise its Housing Element. The Housing Element is the document where the city states its policies to address affordable housing and homelessness. Every five years the Housing Element is supposed to be updated according to state law. Ten years ago and five years ago, I participated on similar committees. Since Councilmember Souza appointed me to this year’s committee, I will be paying careful attention to potential policy changes. I would suggest that this might be one forum to bring up issues related to homelessness and propose new policies.

Luke Watkins

Finding permanent housing for individuals who are homeless and have no source of income is a very difficult problem to solve on a sustainable dignified basis. It takes a lot of money and neighborhood acceptance.

The economics of developing “free” housing is very formidable.

If an individual is to be housed in a modest one bedroom apartment (like those at my Eleanor Roosevelt Circle and Cesar Chavez Plaza projects), it costs approximately $400 per month just to pay the operating costs for that unit (on-site staff, insurance, garbage collection, city water/sewer fees, maintenance, taxes, accounting etc.).

That is just for the operating costs. It does not include the costs of building the project or any social services.

Assuming that you can get 100% of the construction funding from the government or private charities, and they do not charge any mandatory interest or repayment of the principal, then you would only have to find the $400 per month per unit. I have never been able to find 100% of the funding under such terms for any of my housing projects in the past 22 years. My two current projects come the closest, where we have cobbled together approximately 95% of the funding from these types of sources.

35% of the units in my two projects will rent for $226 per month. These are reserved,(by state regulation) for disabled households who are at risk of homelessness (by the state’s definition). How can we rent these for $226 per month if it actually costs us $400 per month to cover the operating costs?

By renting the other 65% of the units at higher rents, we are able to cover the missing $174 for those $226 per month units. If instead of providing 35% of the units at $226 per month, we charged the much higher rents on 95% of the units, then perhaps we could offer 5% of the units rent free. Of course then there would be no units at $226 for the disabled individuals who are getting their $800 or so monthly government support. Should we do the 5% or the 35%? Without a monthly cash subsidy from somewhere outside of the project, you can not do both.

And then of course, where do you build this housing? Recently we had a very difficult struggle getting approval to build our Cesar Chavez Plaza project on Olive Drive. Some people, including our Mayor Greenwald, felt that it was not appropriate to build such a “facility” so near to the downtown. And we were simply proposing to build housing where 35% of the units would rent for $226 per month. What if we had done a project where 100% of the units had been offered for free to homeless individuals? And try proposing it anywhere else in town.

If we had tried to build a project with smaller units instead of 600 square foot one bedroom units) and we had required two to four people per unit, then we could have lowered some of the operating costs, including maintenance and insurance. But try getting that approved anywhere in the city. And of course someone would be complaining that we were treating the residents poorly, forcing them to live in overcrowded housing.

It is a tough problem. But I would be happy to participate in further problem solving discussions.

As many of you know, the city recently formed a committee to revise its Housing Element. The Housing Element is the document where the city states its policies to address affordable housing and homelessness. Every five years the Housing Element is supposed to be updated according to state law. Ten years ago and five years ago, I participated on similar committees. Since Councilmember Souza appointed me to this year’s committee, I will be paying careful attention to potential policy changes. I would suggest that this might be one forum to bring up issues related to homelessness and propose new policies.

Luke Watkins

Hi Luke,
It is a very tough problem indeed. It is very true that affordable housing projects are very difficult to put up because of associated costs. The support that we must get politically for a project is tough as well. I wonder if there is some other solution besides building a new affordable housing project to house the special population that I talk about. I know that the vacancy rate in the city is a little lower than it has been in recent years but do you think it would be possible to open up some vacant apartment units for some of these homeless individuals at least for a while? Perhaps we could get a community wide trust fund going to subsidize rent for the homeless. Maybe we could pay the rent of our homeless people if they performed some sort of service for the community. A individual posted this previously and I said to myself that this was a good idea at least for the homeless folks who can work. This would really help them get on their feet. Maybe we could set up a year around tent city for our homeless. It would be a political battle I admit but it could be done if we put our creative minds together. Luke I will have to research more about the committee that was set up and to attend their meetings. I know that with enough problem solving we could begin moving in the right direction for our people. San Francisco has been a inspiration in housing their homeless though I agree that their homeless demographics are much different than in Davis. Have a wonderful weekend and email me if you can at richardcipian@gmail.com. Best,
Richard

Hi Luke,
It is a very tough problem indeed. It is very true that affordable housing projects are very difficult to put up because of associated costs. The support that we must get politically for a project is tough as well. I wonder if there is some other solution besides building a new affordable housing project to house the special population that I talk about. I know that the vacancy rate in the city is a little lower than it has been in recent years but do you think it would be possible to open up some vacant apartment units for some of these homeless individuals at least for a while? Perhaps we could get a community wide trust fund going to subsidize rent for the homeless. Maybe we could pay the rent of our homeless people if they performed some sort of service for the community. A individual posted this previously and I said to myself that this was a good idea at least for the homeless folks who can work. This would really help them get on their feet. Maybe we could set up a year around tent city for our homeless. It would be a political battle I admit but it could be done if we put our creative minds together. Luke I will have to research more about the committee that was set up and to attend their meetings. I know that with enough problem solving we could begin moving in the right direction for our people. San Francisco has been a inspiration in housing their homeless though I agree that their homeless demographics are much different than in Davis. Have a wonderful weekend and email me if you can at richardcipian@gmail.com. Best,
Richard

One last thing I pondered over the weekend that I wanted to suggest. Why should cost be a factor in housing our people?

One last thing I pondered over the weekend that I wanted to suggest. Why should cost be a factor in housing our people?