By David Romano

On KQED’s Forum on Sept. 23, the topic was, “How Should Progressive Cities Face Their Urban Crises?” hosted by Alexis Madrigal. The two problems that were foremost, not surprisingly, were housing and homelessness.

Alicia John-Baptiste, president and CEO of the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), made reference to the fact that we have not produced enough housing and that funding was stripped from housing in the 1980s, and that has helped create the current scarcity. 

She hits the nail on the head  when she says the hardest cases to help are the long-term ones and that we need to invest more in prevention. We know that even one week of being homeless can result in mental illness and addiction. And that is the most essential point: How do you prevent people from becoming “unsheltered” and vulnerable to alcohol and drug abuse.

Nithya Raman, member of the L.A. City Council, says that housing policies have been in place for “a very long time” and that we need to look at the history, what has brought us to this point. Jessica Trounstine, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and author, said that housing problems are the result of purposeful actions; the housing problem was created through intentionality. That is a story that deserves a second look. 

There were a number of  things going on over the last 50 years that are relevant to the discussion, such as the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The rich acquired more houses and the poor, in many instances, lost the homes that they had. Here is part of a report from Peter Dreier, May 1, 2004, writing in Shelterforce: 

“Reagan came to office in 1981 with a mandate to reduce federal spending. In reality, he increased it through the escalating military budget, all the while slashing funds for domestic programs that assisted working-class Americans, particularly the poor. 

“Reagan also presided over the dramatic deregulation of the nation’s savings and loan industry allowing S&Ls to end their reliance on home mortgages and engage in an orgy of commercial real estate speculation. The result was widespread corruption, mismanagement and the collapse of hundreds of thrift institutions that ultimately led to a taxpayer bailout that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

“By the end of Reagan’s term in office federal assistance to local governments was cut 60%. In 1980, federal dollars accounted for 22% of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan’s second term, federal aid was only 6%.”

More recently:

“Income inequality in the U.S. is at its highest level in more than 50 years, according to new Census data. The gap between rich and poor is the widest in five states: California, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana and New York.” CBS News Sept. 26, 2019

The solutions to the unsheltered situation are very straight foward, and Nithya Raman states them succinctly: 1) Provide more shelter beds, 2) Provide hotel rooms, 3) Provide supportive housing units. All three have been used with some measure of success in Los Angeles. So why haven’t we solved the homelessness and drug addiction crisis in San Francisco? We know what needs to be done. Is it simply the lack of political will? It’s more expensive to take care of people after they become homeless and outcomes are more problematic, so why isn’t every effort being made to keep people in their homes?

The question also came up of the need to make it faster and easier to build. Raman cites Mayor Bass in Los Angeles setting a goal of less than 60 days for affordable housing to be approved. The problem is, no one wants to build affordable housing. At least that’s the case in San Francisco, and I imagine it’s true in most other places.

“Fact: SF NIMBYs, such as they exist, are not stopping housing right now; the Federal Reserve and the preferences of speculative capital are. The City has approved tens of thousands of housing units that could break ground today, no NIMBY opposition, no frivolous lawsuits … they have building permits. But there’s not enough return on investment to make those units profitable, which is what developers care about.” – Tim Redmond, 48 Hills, Sept. 27, 2023.

If the current lack of housing has been decades in the making, it will require an extraordinary re-allocation of resources to catch up. A good place to start would be tax reform. When Reagan started his term, the highest personal income tax rate was 70%; today it’s 37%. We need to go back to 70%, tax the billionaires, and use that money to build affordable housing and fund social services.

More needs to be said about income inequality; the unprecedented concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite few. What about the fact that many billionaires pay no federal taxes?  What about the subprime mortgage meltdown, when tens of thousands of poor people lost their homes after taking out adjustable-rate mortgages?

That is the big picture. It falls under the heading of what one participant called “the constraints of national politics.”  We need to address those constraints, both nationally and in California.  To drill down a bit, to the state level, state politics is where we can most immediately craft solutions and where the most impact can be made in the short term.  Let’s change national and state politics by, at least, recognizing and talking about these larger issues.  To coin a phrase, “think nationally, act locally.”
  
David Romano is a 30 year resident of the outer Richmond and lives near Ocean Beach. David writes about political and environmental issues and is a graduate of SFSU.