HousingWiki

Housing solutionism and best versus the good: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Housing solutionism and best versus the good (view source)

Revision as of 08:26, 15 May 2020

26 bytes added ,  4 years ago
no edit summary
VisualWikitext
(Created page with "this article is part of the Village Buildings book project / article collection. ----<br /> == The general or best solution == The general solution: limiting or ending...")
 
No edit summary
 
Line 53:
 
 
&nbsp;<div style="clear: both">The self-evidentness of "Housing ends homelessness" belies the complex history of how it arose, and what work it does in the field. It is associated with the late-1990s categorizing the "chronic homeless" (Culhane & Kahn, 1998, etc), who permanently need and can be effectively treated (Tsemberis 1999 etc) with conventional housing plus services, provided without treatment preconditions ("Housing First"). Increasingly this has been generalized into the officially endorsed concept for all homelessness response, and used to oppose or limit support for 'shelters,' or anything classified as transitional housing, and sometimes also charitable services such as mobile showers (e.g. Parsell & Watts, 2017).
&nbsp;<div style="clear: both">The self-evidentness of "Housing ends homelessness" belies the complex history of how it arose, and what work it does in the field. It is associated with the late-1990s categorizing the "chronic homeless" (Culhane & Kahn, 1998, etc), who permanently need and can be effectively treated (Tsemberis 1999 etc) with conventional housing plus services, provided without treatment preconditions ("Housing First"). Increasingly this has been generalized into the officially endorsed concept for all homelessness response, and used to oppose or limit support for 'shelters,' or anything classified as transitional housing, and sometimes also charitable services such as mobile showers (e.g. Parsell & Watts, 2017).<br />Also, "housing ends homelessness" or Housing First ideas are typically used to argue, explicitly or implicitly, for providing housing that is the same as current, conventional market housing (see e.g. PSU HRAC's 2019 homelessness report); or a variant, "supportive housing," usually defined as that plus on-site medical and social services/facilities. Often, there is an argument that this is not only the best thing to, but saves public money by reducing use of other services -- which, while it helps to seal a slam-dunk case, turns out to be generally doubtful, and anyway unfortunate in arguing that helping the needy must pay for itself.<br />Or often, now, permanent supportive housing is seen as the /only/ solution. For example, a recent OPB story "[https://www.opb.org/news/article/multnomah-county-portland-oregon-chronic-homelesssness-increase/ Multnomah County Seeing Spike In People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness]" quoted Multnomah County / City of Portland Joint Office of Homeless Services: "Jolin said the office already knows what the solution is. 'The fact that we don’t have supporting housing is why we’re seeing a persistent increase in the chronically homeless over time,' he said."&nbsp;The Joint Office "defines supportive housing as housing that is affordable to those with 'very limited to almost no income' and is equipped with onsite mental health treatment and other support services." [though the US Interagency Council on Homelessness doesn't consider on-site required:&nbsp;https://www.usich.gov/solutions/housing/supportive-housing/; and Sam Tsemberis, chief promulgator of the approach, defined it initially as, and prefers, housing that is *not* integrated with on-site services].<br />So for example, we see, as city response to homelessness, policy like the 2016 Housing Bond, dedicating $258M to create 1,300 units of permanently affordable housing, 600 for households below 30% of AMI, 300 of them Permanent Supportive Housing. Portland Housing Bureau just announced they have hit goal, (via the crucial factor of state law changing to allow funding of private projects), funding 1,424 units, with $213M of the money -- 64% new units, 36% acquisition/rehab. That averages $150k of city funding per unit, probably higher for the new units, and total subsidy per unit much higher due to partner developers bringing other subsidy funds such as LIHTC tax credits, so I'll loosely guess $300k/unit. These projects also have significant rent income from most home recipients, via income or benefits.<br />One issue with these projects is what housing economists call the "crowding out" effect of subsidized housing. They are generally in good locations which, given the level of housing demand, would likely otherwise have been developed as market-rate housing. While subsidized projects clearly help the city's affordability more, it should be compared to what positive affordability effect the market-rate housing might have had; and also, what alternately could be done with the subsidies.<br />The basic problem here is that we have a quite costly response, of creating/acquiring housing units at $100k's each, which is helping only a small part of the needy population; and we have both a large needy population existing, but steady inflow of more people into homelessness. Of course, we could say (and advocates often do say) that we just need to greatly scale up the response. But do we even know how much impact the current approach has, that we would know how much it would need scaling? I think we hardly know or agree on that at all.<br />Official announcements and advocacy often state or imply that 100 units of permanent supportive housing would reduce chronic homelessness by 100 households; but aggregate-effects research, such as reviewed by O'Flaherty in his recent lit review, find dramatically different results, of < 10 household reduction for every 100 new PSH units. (O'Flaherty, Brendan. "Homelessness Research: A Guide for Economists (and Friends)." Journal of Housing Economics (2019), doi:&nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2019.01.003. PDF:&nbsp;[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gxVex3Ph82h6sRVilNkfWzvS4GsB6gGN https://drive.google.com/open...]).<br />In any case, when confronted with a large social project such as ending homelessness, shouldn't we ask how best, cost-effectively, and expeditiously it can be done, and not just accept a "trust us!" from the establishment in charge? Is it undignifying the homeless, to ask what housing is, how it can be done anew? I think it's more undignifying to suggest that the answers are all known, to a monumentally complex and severe problem stretching on for decades and in many places including West Coast cities, getting worse. With deep respect for the many committed, caring, expert people working in this field -- and recognizing that experienced advocates may feel embattled and inclined to circle wagons and use what rhetoric seems to work -- I think, as Giancarlo De Carlo said: architecture is too important to be left to the architects. ("Architecture's Public", 1970).<br />In my opinion, towards housing for all, governments should focus on first on reducing overall housing scarcity and cost factors, then on the potential for helping the least-served with a housing benefit (i.e. voucher), and then on enabling in the most cost-effective way the largest possible amount of basic housing options, in the way that least crowds out other housing production; and by combining all means, move towards an effective "right to housing." Some obvious candidates for where governments might look for lowest-subsidy-cost, adequate new dwellings are: incenting and facilitating house-sharing, of underutilized e.g. empty-nest homes; and likewise, low-cost accessory dwelling and cottage cluster housing aimed at low-income households.<br />The seemingly obvious "housing ends homelessness" answer, in my opinion, unfortunately tends to evade necessary analyses, and considering issues broadly and radically. It tends to promote a costly new-housing 'cure' over possibly much more cost-effective preventions or treatments, it tends to occlude the question of what counts or works as 'housing,' and how it might be done differently. Exactly contrary to hopes, it may help tend to frame the problem such that it will never be solved, at least in our time.</div>---
<br />Also, "housing ends homelessness" or Housing First ideas are typically used to argue, explicitly or implicitly, for providing housing that is the same as current, conventional market housing (see e.g. PSU HRAC's 2019 homelessness report); or a variant, "supportive housing," usually defined as that plus on-site medical and social services/facilities. Often, there is an argument that this is not only the best thing to, but saves public money by reducing use of other services -- which, while it helps to seal a slam-dunk case, turns out to be generally doubtful, and anyway unfortunate in arguing that helping the needy must pay for itself.
 
<br />Or often, now, permanent supportive housing is seen as the /only/ solution. For example, a recent OPB story "[https://www.opb.org/news/article/multnomah-county-portland-oregon-chronic-homelesssness-increase/ Multnomah County Seeing Spike In People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness]" quoted Multnomah County / City of Portland Joint Office of Homeless Services: "Jolin said the office already knows what the solution is. 'The fact that we don’t have supporting housing is why we’re seeing a persistent increase in the chronically homeless over time,' he said."&nbsp;The Joint Office "defines supportive housing as housing that is affordable to those with 'very limited to almost no income' and is equipped with onsite mental health treatment and other support services." [though the US Interagency Council on Homelessness doesn't consider on-site required:&nbsp;https://www.usich.gov/solutions/housing/supportive-housing/; and Sam Tsemberis, chief promulgator of the approach, defined it initially as, and prefers, housing that is *not* integrated with on-site services].
 
<br />So for example, we see, as city response to homelessness, policy like the Portland 2016 Housing Bond, dedicating $258M to create 1,300 units of permanently affordable housing, 600 for households below 30% of AMI, 300 of them Permanent Supportive Housing. Portland Housing Bureau just announced they have hit goal, (via the crucial factor of state law changing to allow funding of private projects), funding 1,424 units, with $213M of the money -- 64% new units, 36% acquisition/rehab. That averages $150k of city funding per unit, probably higher for the new units, and total subsidy per unit much higher due to partner developers bringing other subsidy funds such as LIHTC tax credits, so I'll loosely guess $300k/unit. These projects also have significant rent income from most home recipients, via income or benefits.<br />
 
One issue with these projects is what housing economists call the "crowding out" effect of subsidized housing. They are generally in good locations which, given the level of housing demand, would likely otherwise have been developed as market-rate housing. While subsidized projects clearly help the city's affordability more, it should be compared to what positive affordability effect the market-rate housing might have had; and also, what alternately could be done with the subsidies.<br />
 
The basic problem here is that we have a quite costly response, of creating/acquiring housing units at $100k's each, which is helping only a small part of the needy population; and we have both a large needy population existing, but steady inflow of more people into homelessness. Of course, we could say (and advocates often do say) that we just need to greatly scale up the response. But do we even know how much impact the current approach has, that we would know how much it would need scaling? I think we hardly know or agree on that at all.
 
<br />Official announcements and advocacy often state or imply that 100 units of permanent supportive housing would reduce chronic homelessness by 100 households; but aggregate-effects research, such as reviewed by O'Flaherty in his recent lit review, find dramatically different results, of < 10 household reduction for every 100 new PSH units. (O'Flaherty, Brendan. "Homelessness Research: A Guide for Economists (and Friends)." Journal of Housing Economics (2019), doi:&nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2019.01.003. PDF:&nbsp;[https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gxVex3Ph82h6sRVilNkfWzvS4GsB6gGN https://drive.google.com/open...]).
 
<br />In any case, when confronted with a large social project such as ending homelessness, shouldn't we ask how best, cost-effectively, and expeditiously it can be done, and not just accept a "trust us!" from the establishment in charge? Is it undignifying the homeless, to ask what housing is, how it can be done anew? I think it's more undignifying to suggest that the answers are all known, to a monumentally complex and severe problem stretching on for decades and in many places including West Coast cities, getting worse. With deep respect for the many committed, caring, expert people working in this field -- and recognizing that experienced advocates may feel embattled and inclined to circle wagons and use what rhetoric seems to work -- I think, as Giancarlo De Carlo said: architecture is too important to be left to the architects. ("Architecture's Public", 1970).
 
<br />In my opinion, towards housing for all, governments should focus on first on reducing overall housing scarcity and cost factors, then on the potential for helping the least-served with a housing benefit (i.e. voucher), and then on enabling in the most cost-effective way the largest possible amount of basic housing options, in the way that least crowds out other housing production; and by combining all means, move towards an effective "right to housing." Some obvious candidates for where governments might look for lowest-subsidy-cost, adequate new dwellings are: incenting and facilitating house-sharing, of underutilized e.g. empty-nest homes; and likewise, low-cost accessory dwelling and cottage cluster housing aimed at low-income households.
 
<br />The seemingly obvious "housing ends homelessness" answer, in my opinion, unfortunately tends to evade necessary analyses, and considering issues broadly and radically. It tends to promote a costly new-housing 'cure' over possibly much more cost-effective preventions or treatments, it tends to occlude the question of what counts or works as 'housing,' and how it might be done differently. Exactly contrary to hopes, it may help tend to frame the problem such that it will never be solved, at least in our time.</div>---
 
thread with Watts et al:&nbsp;&nbsp;https://twitter.com/tmccormick/status/1189138645866799106
Retrieved from "https://housing.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/5929"