Guest Sunday Commentary: Dealing with Homelessness Takes Patience and Persistence

Mayor Robb Davis listens to the concerns of the business community during a walkabout a few weeks ago

By Robb Davis

(The following is adapted from opening remarks at a Davis Chamber of Commerce-sponsored forum on homelessness held on April 26, 2017)

In my 25 years working in maternal and child health in West Africa and the Indian subcontinent—places of extreme poverty and exclusion—we would often talk about the challenge of delivering services to “the final mile.”

Reaching the final mile—that place where people are the poorest, where health conditions are the worst—is the costliest. It is very challenging to go the final mile.  In fact, you may pay as much in the final mile as you paid for all the other miles up to the final mile combined because that’s the place of deep and intractable need.  It is also the place that is hardest to reach.  And I think as we talk about homelessness—the kind of homelessness that most people see and talk about—that kind of homelessness is really the “final mile” homelessness.

We’re talking about a syndrome really. A syndrome that shows itself as homelessness, as people living rough, outdoors in very difficult conditions.  That kind of homelessness is often the result of a combination of many factors that include mental health challenges; addictions to some very, very powerful substances; and, as we’re learning more and more, severe childhood trauma that underlies everything that’s happened since.

And so, we have a final mile problem.

Most people know little about the vast majority of homelessness in this community because the majority of cases are situations like someone coming out of jail and needing a temporary residence to get reintegrated; or someone who lost a job and a house and rapid rehousing helps them; or schoolkids whose parents are couch surfing; or a woman fleeing domestic violence who finds help in a local shelter and moves into the next part of her life and her children’s lives.  Most often we don’t hear about these cases but they do represent the majority of “homeless cases” in our community.

That homelessness is not visible—not something we see. And most of the agencies that are working on it in this community do it in a quiet and consistent way and help people in ways that never become apparent to the broader population.

The homelessness that garners our attention, based on the emails I get, is the final mile kind—the kind that is very visible and makes us feel uncomfortable. And as I said, it’s a syndrome, and we need to keep that in mind. What we’re seeing when we see people choosing to live outside in camps (that are obviously substandard for human living) is a combination of factors that we may only understand in part and do not fully grasp in terms of the way they enchain and enslave people.

Many people are asking “why don’t we do more? Why don’t we use the tools of prosecution…we should be moving these people out of the camps.  What they’re doing is illegal.  What they’re doing is detrimental to the community and they need to be prosecuted for that.” But many of us—including our police and even the District Attorney—would respond, “Really? Are we really going to cycle people through the criminal justice system one more time?”

We arrest them, we incarcerate them, we fine them, we put them back out on the street.  They don’t pay the fines, they break probation, and the cycle continues.  Where does that take us?  Where does it take them?

Somewhere along the line we must acknowledge that prosecution is not a solution.   It certainly isn’t dealing with the underlying causes of the behavior we want to address.  So, I think we need to talk about the underlying causes because cycling people through the criminal justice system may move them out of sight and mind for a time but that is really not moving us forward in terms of dealing with the real issues that people are facing.

In Davis, we are not merely throwing up our arms and saying there is nothing we can do.  We’re committed as a city to move forward with a process known as Housing First.  Housing First is about helping people who are in those situations to move into housing before dealing with the broader issues they face.  Housing First starts by providing an alternative to the street but then moves aggressively to deal with the causes of the homelessness.  The key is to get a roof over people’s heads and then to provide wrap-around services to address the other challenges they face.

Let’s be clear, it is not a panacea. To say we’re committed to it does not make it happen.  First and foremost, we live in California and so housing is at a premium in every community.

We do not currently have the beds we need to house all those in need. We do not have enough beds—even with housing assistance programs—at a price that is affordable to house people in need.

This Council, and the prior one, has set aside resources to build 90 new units—40 of which are destined for permanent supportive housing (the kind needed to house those with special needs). In addition, we have resources from a recently obtained grant from Sutter Hospital to provide housing vouchers that can help fill the need.  These are a start.

But as difficult as providing housing is, it is only a first step, because once the roof is there then the wrap-around services that really are about addressing the underlying needs of the population in question become important.

And lest we think these are short term wrap-around programs, I think we need to remember that we’re dealing with people that have gone down a long road and it’s going to be an equally long road to come back.  And so the services will need to be continued over a long period of time, which implies a revenue stream that we need to create within the community.  In other words, this problem will not be dealt with through one-off grants over short periods of time. We need to find out how to generate streams of revenue if we’re really going to attack the challenge that we have.

Ultimately, I hope we can talk about what we can do to create these revenue streams. We need to talk about our options and make commitments. To deal with the visible homelessness that attracts our attention will take a patient and persistent process.  I look forward to working with all members of the community to find a way forward to deal with these issues.



Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$
USD
Sign up for

About The Author

Related posts

61 Comments

  1. Keith O

    Ultimately, I hope we can talk about what we can do to create these revenue streams. 

    Is this a precursor to coming after Davis homeowners for yet another parcel tax?

    A homeless tax?

      1. Keith O

        We’ve pretty much been fed that any new parcel tax would be earmarked for roads only which has a chance of Davis homeowners climbing aboard.  So are you now saying that the council is going to sway away from that and ask for an even larger tax which could be earmarked for many other things?  Is this like pork getting thrown into tax bills?

        1. David Greenwald

          Parcel taxes have to have their monies laid out in advance. What if we could create a revenue stream for only ten additional dollars per parcel, per year?  Don’t know what it would be – just throwing it out there.

        2. Tia Will

          Keith

          It is interesting to me that you characterize potential funding for feeding, clothing and housing people in need as “pork”. If this is not as fundamental as any “need” in our community, I would be hard put to see what is.

      2. Keith O

        David:

        If so – It would be included in the large parcel tax that is coming

        You stated that like you know the plan already.

        You didn’t say ‘If so – It could be included in the large parcel tax that is coming’

        1. Keith O

          No, I don’t think I read your comment “too finely”, I read it exactly as you wrote it.
          It’s going to be interesting to watch how any new parcel tax shakes out and how voters are going to react if a road repair only parcel tax starts getting watered down.

    1. Howard P

      If “we” means the City, that is a concern, given that the ‘problem’ and potential solutions lay at a County, and/or regional level.  But there is a hodge-podge of faith-based, County, and other resources, with no single ‘umbrella’ coordination, which is critical, as the most intractable situations cross housing, food/nutrition, substance abuse, and mental health issues, as Robb has correctly pointed out.

      Am discovering the resources are somewhat in place, (probably need to be augmented), but with lack of coordination between the resources (too many ‘silos’), a given homeless individual, dealing with a ‘constellation’ of issues, doesn’t stand the proverbial “snowball’s chance”, even if they sincerely want to change their situation.  They need an ‘advocate’ that can help steer them through the archipelago of resources.

      A few more chapters need to be written, but when they are, I may well have an instructive story to tell… maybe 3 weeks from now…

      But the answer (if there is one) clearly lies NOT at the city level.

        1. Howard P

          And clearly, unless there are controls to keep those housed from hanging out with their “user” buddies, or keeping such friends from “crashing there”, for the ones toward the ‘intractable’ edge of the spectrum, that will fail miserably.

        2. Howard P

          Well, it would be interesting to see such track records if and when it looks like the concept gets traction here.  I’m open for the discussion.

          But comparisons will need to be apples to apples.

      1. Tia Will

        Howard

        We see this differently. True the problem does not lie exclusively at the city level. But it is perceived and lived by both sides ( homeless and housed) at the city level. Davis has people living unsheltered on our city streets just as do other communities. To point fingers and say that this is someone else’s responsibility is part of the reason we are not managing to see improvements. I see the city as an integral part of what should be a unified “umbrella” as you said that involves the individual, those who build relationships with that individual, the faith community, other charitable organizations, the police, the city, county and regional agencies. We need more integration of efforts, not more fragmentation and “that’s not in my job description” attitude.

  2. Tia Will

    Howard

    I actually believe after re reading your comments that our positions may be very close. It seems that what most divides us is that you are coming from a skeptics point of view. Having known about the housing first approach and projects in Seattle and a few other communities ( data not at hand), I have become enthusiastic about housing first as a foundation for a comprehensive integrated approach. Others have done more research on this than I, so I will leave it to them to expound. Would love to see an article on this from someone more knowledgeable than I.

  3. Mike Hart

    The “homeless” of Davis have hit a toxic level.  These are aggressive young people who choose a certain lifestyle that involves using our city as a toilet.  Why on earth would we want to house them? These people are capable of working but choose not to- there is no need as the good people of Davis feed them like fat and useless pigeons.

    I know these people, I have been to their camps and looked at the mounds of bikes they have stolen. They surround our city like a besieging army.  People who would burst into tears if they failed to recycle a plastic bag think nothing of giving money to these toxic hobos who then leave MOUNDS of trash surrounding their encampments.  Piles of broken beer bottles litter the place, stinking piles of filth are left there for someone else to clean-up. Get out of your homes and go peek behind the bushes on F street by the Cannery or on the Nishi property, or anywhere along Putah Creek near Davis or along 113.  Why would we want these angry people in our neighborhoods?

    The right answer is to seek to put nearby DQ University to use.  It is a large complex of bedrooms, classrooms, kitchen facilities and infrastructure.  It could serve as a regional shelter for not just Davis, but Woodland and the rest of Yolo County as well.  It could provide an income stream for the tribal community that has struggled to put it to effective use since 80’s, rent it from them if they are willing.  Create a magnet for services there- mental health, law enofrcement, safe beds, feeding facilities etc.  There is acreage there where people could be taught to raise their own food and to find useful vocations.  If nothing else- it gets these hobos off our streets and out of our town.  Yes, I am very specifically seeking a way to get them out of Davis.  No, they are not “our” problem that need to be housed and nurtured here just because they were dumped in our town or drifted here on the rumors of free good and easy money.  They are a problem that should be addressed regionally.

    I think you would find a very strong level of support from downtown merchants and members of the community who genuinely care about long-term solutions to keeping our community safe to help fund such a solution.  A parcel tax to fund for their housing in Davis is doomed along with whatever good things might be so ill-fated as to be on the same ballot.

    1. Richard C

      The right answer is to seek to put nearby DQ University to use.  It is a large complex of bedrooms, classrooms, kitchen facilities and infrastructure.  It could serve as a regional shelter for not just Davis, but Woodland and the rest of Yolo County as well.  It could provide an income stream for the tribal community that has struggled to put it to effective use since 80’s, rent it from them if they are willing.  Create a magnet for services there- mental health, law enofrcement, safe beds, feeding facilities etc. 

      That’s a nice idea, but where would the money come from to accomplish this?

      1. Mike Hart

        Three sources come to mind.

        1)  A PBID (local bond) that would go on the downtown businesses to pay for getting the homeless out of downtown.  They would need to be assured the the police would step-up enforcement of existing laws.  A small fee to ensure that they have a safe and clean place to do business.

        2)  Why not have someone downtown collecting money for the less fortunate that can take credit cards etc. and it all goes to programs at the center rather than to local liquor stores?

        3)  A reduction in costs for the county and cities in costs relating to the homeless as well as from the local faith-based organizations. In short, consolidate that which is already being spent.

    2. Richard McCann

      Mike, you’re characterizing only a small part of the homeless population here (and even the longer term homeless we know complain of the influx of this population that you’re seeing.) Come to the Interfaith Rotating Winter Shelter and you’ll experience a different population that differs dramatically in composition and issues. This complexity makes a solution more problematic.

      As for DQU, the ownership quagmire almost certainly precludes a quick use as a solution. Further, isolating the homeless doesn’t really solve the problem–it just warehouses them. Providing community support and integration is what moves this group toward a better outcome.

  4. Jim Hoch

    Couple of comments. First of all what is “Housing First”? From HUD:

    “What is Housing First? Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements. Supportive services are offered to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness as opposed to addressing predetermined treatment goals prior to permanent housing entry.”

    So forget everything you know about homeless programs. There are no interventions here. The way the people currently live in the tent is how they will live in this proposed facility. There will be attempts to involve them in various programs but there are already attempts to involve them in various programs and there is no magic to being housed which makes them stop smoking meth or engage in mental health treatment. Most of the studies I have seen on this describe the difference in outcomes between housing first and no housing are regarded as “slight”. The goal here is to take people out of the tent and put them under a roof. If your anticipation is that they will gain some kind of “recovery” this is not part of the program.

    This facility has to exist somewhere and nobody I know will want untreated meth addicts and people with untreated mental illness living near them. This facility will have constant police contact given the nature of population. These are not recovery houses or group homes where clients who act out get the boot. It is expected that tenants will be socially unacceptable. Robb has not stated where he wants to put this facility and the only place I can envision is near the Binning Tract. Nugget field will result in a torch and pitchfork scenario.

    As the homeless are transient even 90 units will not reduce the number of homeless in Davis. There will be no change in the number of panhandlers downtown.

    Very few of the population Robb describes will ever become independent even with SSI or other income streams.

    It’s tough which is why it is still a problem.

     

     

     

    1. Liz Miller

      “The way they currently live is how they will live in the facility”.

      This is incorrect information.

      Residents are required to follow the rules or they can’t stay.  And most do want to stay.

      As Tia points out, these programs are successful.   Chico has a similar program and it’s worked well for many years.

      Oddly, there are lots of beds, 77, next to the post office, with commercial kitchen and offices for counseling, etc., but Robb Davis pushed successfully for its demolition.  Talk is cheap.

      1. Jim Hoch

        The core features of Housing First in the context of permanent supportive housing models are as follows:

         Few to no programmatic prerequisites to permanent housing entry – People experiencing homelessness are offered permanent housing with no programmatic preconditions such as demonstration of sobriety, completion of alcohol or drug treatment, or agreeing to comply with a treatment regimen upon entry into the program. People are also not required to first enter a transitional housing program in order to enter permanent housing

         Low barrier admission policies – Permanent supportive housing’s admissions policies are designed to “screen-in” rather than screen-out applicants with the greatest barriers to housing, such as having no or very low income, poor rental history and past evictions, or criminal histories. Housing programs may have tenant selection policies that prioritize people who have been homeless the longest or who have the highest service needs as evidenced by vulnerability assessments or the high utilization of crisis services.

         

        So what of the above sounds like “Residents are required to follow the rules or they can’t stay.” ????

        1. Jim Hoch

          Howard, that would be ideal. However people have a hard time wrapping their head around the idea that this not a “program” with “councilors” it’s just housing.

          The same way that you could drink on your front yard until you pass out if you want to with little the city can do about it, the tenants of housing first have the same option.

           

          You can babble incoherently on the sidewalk in front of your house and as long as you don’t actually make a direct threat or violate the noise ordinance then there is little that anyone can or will do about it. Housing first is the same way, it’s housing, not a program.

      2. Robb Davis

        Robb Davis pushed successfully for its demolition.

        This statement is inaccurate and misleading.

        1) The City did not control the Families’ First property.

        2) The City, either alone or with the County did not have the resources necessary to purchase the property.

        3) The broker make it clear that he marketed it broadly and to many non-profits over a two-year period.  No one was able to purchase it.

        So, I did not “push” for anything, though I did work with a few non-profits to see if there was a way forward for them to obtain it.  It became clear, early on, that this was not going to be feasible.  We did use the opportunity of this project to provide 39 units of affordable housing (not permanent supportive but low income).

        1. Liz Miller

          If the City hadn’t changed the zoning and the density to attract an oversize development, the price would have been a LOT lower and the property would have been  affordable for social services purposes.

        2. Howard P

          Wrong order, Liz…  have not seen anything so far to indicate that the City led for any zoning change… there are/have been a few exceptions, but generally doesn’t work that way.  Unless you have inside information…

          And no indication what the asking price of the FF property was/would have been… sounds like pure speculation, unless you can elaborate. No indication that it would have been “affordable” for social services purposes, particularly with no identified source of $.

    2. Howard P

      Would be helpful to define ‘housing’… does that include meals, laundry/linen service?  They’ll still need to panhandle for cigarettes, alcohol, other ‘drugs of choice’, even if food, and basic cleanliness are provided.

  5. Don Shor

    Wikipedia has a good overview of Housing First here: 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_First

    Note the criticisms. I also see that this has mostly been implemented in larger cities that have a bigger population and tax base for funding.

    I would be very concerned that auxiliary services wouldn’t be provided or used, that the project would likely be chronically underfunded, that the lack of mandated participation in support services would be a problem, that success is largely defined by the provision of shelter only and not by any other apparent criteria, and that any facility would likely become a serious problem for the neighborhood in which it is located.

    I don’t think Davis is big enough to support or fund this long-term. I do think this is mostly something dealt with at the county level, and would like the city to avoid duplicating services. If, in fact, it is going to be part of a parcel tax, it should stand alone before the voters.

    1. Robb Davis

      I agree that this is regional problem.  The challenge is that there are no “regional revenue streams” for homelessness.  Much of what the County funds is grant-based and I am saying that we cannot live grant to grant to take care of problems like this one.  Therefore, I am asking us to consider a separate tax.  I do not have any indication that my colleagues, let alone the voters, would go for such a tax but I am willing to put something on the ballot and let it stand alone.

      People want us to do something about the problem–and it is a challenging one.  All I am saying is that it costs money.  The City has a library tax, an open space tax, and a parks’ tax.  Why not a small tax to deal with this issue?

      1. Keith O

        The City has a library tax, an open space tax, and a parks’ tax.  Why not a small tax to deal with this issue?

        And why not a this tax and a that tax to add to all the other taxes everyone is already paying?  At what point do you think that the people have reached the point where they can’t keep being asked to pony up anymore?

        1. Howard P

          And, at what point do you think people will tire of unanswerable questions?

          Or, are you just “venting”?

          I suspect, but don’t know, that when you say, “all the other taxes everyone is already paying?”, you are ‘everybody’. Seems like a recurrent theme for you.

        2. Keith O

          Oh Howard, I think I know most of the types of taxes that “everybody” is already paying as I’m paying most of the same taxes myself.  It’s not that hard to figure out.

           

      2. Howard P

        Robb… will contact you off-line for what I’ve learned in the past 3 weeks… resources are there, but not co-ordinated, and they include faith-based programs.  As I’ve dived into “terra incognito”,  I see great potential IF there are knowledgeable advocates to wade thru it, but yes, across the board, there are additional resources needed, but not as much as one might think.  And if various public and private entities can work together.

        In my case, I walked into a situation that was very frustrating, but (needing some more ‘chapters’ to the story), but is, God-willing, looking very promising for one homeless man.  A journey of a thousand miles begins with a step at a time, as I recall.

      3. Howard P

        Robb… you admit it is a County/Regional problem… perhaps it would be more effective to advocate at City/County 2X2’s, and @ SACOG.

        Davis does not need to be the proverbial mecca (sp?) to solve the county/regional issues.  That, we clearly cannot afford, nor should we do more than bring our “fair share” to the table… but, we should bring our fair-share, and perhaps a tad more, to the table.  IMO.

      4. Don Shor

         

        We can find information about existing programs of Housing First online.
        One site “has 24-hour, on-site staff trained in property management and supportive services” and “case managers each carry a caseload of 34 people.”
        From this site:
        “Core Elements of Housing First at the Community Level
        Include:
        Your community has a coordinated system that offers a unified, streamlined, and user-friendly communitywide coordinated entry process to quickly assess and match people experiencing homelessness to the most appropriate housing and services,
        Outreach and other crisis response teams are coordinated, trained, and have the ability to engage and quickly connect people experiencing homelessness to the local coordinated entry process in order to apply for and obtain permanent housing.
        Your community has a data-driven approach to prioritizing housing assistance,
        Policymakers, funders, and providers conduct joint planning to develop and align resources…”
        I think you can see that this would require some permanent staff positions funded, and existing staff resources dedicated to coordinating city response with county and private resources.
         Social services is a high turnover, high burnout field. I have a friend in another state who works in social services; with employee turnover it isn’t unusual for her to have a caseload of 55 – 60 individuals who she is supposed to contact weekly, help navigate bureaucracies and medical issues, and get to appointments.  You can’t just set up something like this and leave it underfunded. I think if you are serious about this kind of thing, you need a full appraisal of the ongoing costs for multiple full-time positions and the impact on existing staff at the local and county levels. I suspect you’ll be surprised by the ongoing tax resources that would be required.
      5. Mike Hart

        Robb- thank you for addressing this issue! My very strong opinion is that creating a few houses for the homeless in our city would be a huge mistake that would be strongly opposed.  I also feel that it would have no real benefit for the city.

        I believe that a group housing situation out at the DQ University would be the right answer.  Not only does it allow us to regionalize the solution with other communities in our county but also allows more resources to be directed to help.  Their issue is not lack of a house…

        Tell your downtown merchants and residents who are bearing the brunt of this assault on Davis  that real enforcement would acoompany the creation of a place where these people can go- then you the basis for funding the whole project.

        1. Howard P

          That might make sense, if not for the fact that transportation for medical, MH services would be problematic.  Goes more to warehousing, and facilitation of “out of sight, out of mind”.  Not sure of the structural and/or basic utilities suitability, either…

        2. Keith O

          You know Howard, I’ve felt your comments have been much better lately.  You had seemed to have ditched much of the vitriol in the last few weeks.  I thought maybe you had turned the corner but obviously you just can’t help yourself.

          Welcome back!

           

        3. Keith O

          Now Howard, back to the point.  Do you really feel this town has the nerve or the determination to actually roust homeless people squatting on our streets with “real enforcement”.  I don’t.

          Now perhaps you can reply with your opinion and not personal jabs.

  6. Liz Miller

    After they’ve been moved in, as it says in the article,

    “Housing First ………….moves aggressively to deal with the causes of homelessness.”

    1. Don Shor

      I am aware that that is Robb’s opinion, yes.

       Housing First starts by providing an alternative to the street but then moves aggressively to deal with the causes of the homelessness.  The key is to get a roof over people’s heads and then to provide wrap-around services to address the other challenges they face.

      I am concerned those services will not be provided sufficiently, I am concerned that the city will not have sufficient funding for them, and I suspect they duplicate services already provided by the county.

      If this was easy, someone would already be doing it.

      1. Howard P

        You are correct about it not being easy… it is being made more difficult by lack of coordination of existing resources.  That is a stone-cold fact.

    2. Jim Hoch

      The cause of homelessness is not having a house. Therefore their solution is to put you in a house on your own terms. No “treatment or service participation requirements”. They do not require you to follow any rules for you to stay in your “permanent housing”.

       

      “Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements.”

  7. Jim Hoch

    Here is a little gem from one of their reports.

    “We also understand that for some part of that number getting them off the street will require at least temporary accommodation to drug and alcohol use in the facilities in which they are housed”

  8. Leanna Sweha

    I have been a volunteer at the homeless legal clinic at Loaves and Fishes in Sacramento for several years. I can attest to homelessness being a complex issue.  I am helping a man right now with several legal issues. If he is able to obtain stable housing in the near future, it would help greatly with all of his issues.

    Sacramento is having problems getting a housing-first program up and running, even with Mayor Steinberg being a great advocate of the approach.

    I share Don’s concerns about stable funding for security and wrap-around services, and I believe a parcel tax proposal is a non-starter.

    Eliminating barriers to new market rate construction would make a big difference with this issue overall.  http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/08/residential-infill-davis-death-governor-browns-affordable-housing-trailer-bill/

    How about if we rally around that cause?

    1. Robb Davis

      Leanna – To me this is not an either or.  We need more housing, I agree. But the needs of people on the streets go beyond a roof, and vouchers are not matching the actual prices available.  So, yes, let’s do more in that regard.  Let’s also deal with the specific needs of people dealing with the syndrome that leads to homelessness.

      A tax may very well fail but I disagree with the notion that we cannot tackle this problem locally.  I believe we can if we have the will.  I was at a memorial service for a local homeless person who died tragically two weeks ago on Friday.  There were many in attendance, including about a half dozen people who have found their way out of the most difficult situations imaginable.

      We need a long, patient, approach and we need to commit resources to it. And we need a long term revenue streams to do so.

      1. Leanna Sweha

        Robb – I’m sorry you misunderstood my comment. I am all for addressing both housing and services.  It’s just that I believe the lack of affordable housing in this state is the elephant in the room.

        Mayor Steinberg wants more federal housing vouchers for the homeless, and was able to increase the amount by about 1500 over the next few years. But, there are already 70,000 people in the city waiting for 12,000 spaces, and giving more to the homeless will put others at risk of homelessness, mainly blacks, asians and families with children. http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article138788888.html

        The average one-bedroom voucher in Sacramento is $870, which may not even cover the actual rent.  We all know what that means about housing supply and market rates.

        1. Jim Hoch

          Leanna,

          If an apartment in Davis was $300 the homeless by the railroad track would still be living by the railroad track. The population that Robb is referring to will either devote 100% of funds to using and/or has mental/behavioral issues that would make them not a candidate for regular housing.

          A significant number will refuse housing even if free as living in a box makes them uncomfortable.

  9. Don Shor

    Estimated cost of the Utah program is about $10 – 12000 per person per year. Given the numbers above, that would be a program cost of $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year.

    Davis has about 25,000 households.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for