Santa Clara County has made considerable strides toward reaching its goal of creating 6,000 units of new, affordable housing for homeless individuals and families, according to a report released Tuesday.
Since January 2015, the county added 1,449 new housing units for homeless persons. It has another 840 in the pipeline, according to the Office of Supportive Housing’s Ending Homelessness: The State of the Supportive Housing System in Santa Clara County 2017 report. The study is the first in a series of 10 annual reports regarding homelessness and focuses on supportive housing, the $950 million 2016 Measure A affordable-housing bond and progress toward the county’s 2015-2020 Community Plan to End Homelessness.
In 2017, the county had an estimated 7,394 recorded homeless persons. Of those, 74 percent were unsheltered — meaning they had no protection from the elements. But the problem is much greater. A 2015 county study, Home Not Found, identified 46,225 residents in the county who experienced homelessness at some point in 2012 alone and received some form of county medical, behavioral health or other social service. Serving these individuals has been costly. The county spends $520 million annually in support services for homeless persons, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2017 Annual Homeless Assessment Report.
The rental market and lack of income are the primary barriers to regaining housing, according to the county’s 2017 Homeless Census and Survey. Sixty-two percent said they can’t afford rent, 56 percent had no job or income and 23 percent had no money for moving costs. Job loss and eviction were among the leading causes of homelessness. Evictions are the primary cause, rising by 11 percentage points from 2011 to 2017, according to the survey.
The cost of housing has far outstripped wages in the county — particularly for extremely low- and low-income renters. According to the county report issued Tuesday, an affordable unit for an extremely low-income renter (in which the household pays no more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs) would be $628 for an individual, $716 for a two-person household and $885 for a four-person household.
The county 2017 fair market rent averages $1,773 monthly for a one-bedroom apartment and $2,200 for a two-bedroom apartment, however. Housing costs in Palo Alto are far worse. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,620 and a two-bedroom unit is $3,617, according to the online trend tracker RentCafe.
Voters approved the nearly $1 billion Measure A bond measure to help fill some of the need by providing funding for approximately 4,800 affordable-housing units. So far, the county has approved six developments with housing designated for persons leaving homelessness, but none of them are in the northern section of county. The locations include three developments in San Jose and one each in Cupertino, Gilroy and Morgan Hill, which are scheduled to open between May 2019 and February 2021. Another 134-unit development in San Jose, Second Street Studios, is expected to be completed by this September.
The county plans to support a total 120 developments through the next decade, according to the July report. Of the 1,449 housing units built as of Dec. 31, 2017, 946 are permanent supportive housing — housing that provides social, medical and other services — and 503 are rapid rehousing, which gets people off the street quickly. Housing currently in the pipeline will supply an additional 655 units of permanent supportive housing, 87 rapid-rehousing units and 62 others of which use has not yet been determined.
But data in the county’s July report supports a June 21 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury finding that Santa Clara County cities are not supplying adequate housing — particularly of the type that helps keep people from homelessness.
Palo Alto ranked dismally when it came to meeting its 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation, a state-mandated process Bay Area counties use to identify and project the number of housing units needed to meet the needs of people of all income levels in each county. Palo Alto issued building permits for just nine low-income units, or 2 percent, of its 543-unit allocation, and 156 permits, or 23 percent, of the 690 units for very low-income housing. For the 2015-2023 cycle through 2017, it has added 58 low-income units, or 13 percent, for low-income housing; and 20 units, or 3 percent, for very low-income residents, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments.
A large part of the July report is dedicated to explaining support services that help keep people in housing by providing case management, job assistance, medical and mental health services and other needs. These programs are provided in both short-term and permanent housing. The report points to the overall success of such programs. Since the county implemented the 2015-2020 Community Plan to End Homelessness, 5,154 people have found permanent housing through various programs.
Of the people in permanent supportive housing, 90 percent remained stably housed for at least a year between July 2011 and the end of 2016. Only 6 percent of all clients who left permanent supportive housing for other permanent housing in 2015 had returned to homelessness within two years (four out of 65 persons). And 72 percent of clients who were in short-term housing programs in 2017 went on to obtain permanent housing.
New programs aim to build on those numbers. In 2018, the Special Needs Direct Referral program will work to house people with medical or behavioral needs who don’t meet federal standards for chronic homelessness. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center’s Supportive Housing Program also helps medically fragile persons who are identified as high users of county emergency services. The program, which will serve 70 clients, is a collaboration to provide housing, case management and high-quality health care. Enrollment began in November.
Related content:
I give very little credence to government-generated PowerPoint displays citing this or that as most of them are based on misleading quantitative research methods that rarely reflect reality as a whole.
As a resident/owner of a house in Palo Alto (along with an undeveloped empty lot adjacent to my home), I have often considered installing some porta-potties + hot/cold running water in an effort to assist those without a dwelling. It would be like a KOA campground for the homeless with tents (on raised platforms) providing shelter.
Unfortunately, I suspect the city planning department (along with certain neighbors) would find issue with this concept & I am somewhat reluctant to spend time in court defending my desired actions.
As a result, I will probably put the parcel up for sale & donate a substantial portion of the proceeds (after capital gains tax) to homeless relief agencies whom I hope will utilize the monetary resources pro-actively rather than for questionable administrative expenditures.
While it is relatively easy to look the other way, homelessness can happen to anyone & oftentimes through no fault of their own.
Sympathy for the Homeless…
Most folks in PA town could care less about the plight of the homeless. That’s why your idea for a ‘KOA’ homeless camp would be shut down in a matter of hours.
Homeless folks are the bane of Paly merchants, restauranteurs and residential homeowners who fear their ubiquitous presence will diminish business proceeds and lower property values.
There are two types of homeless…those on the streets with no roof and those in delapidated RVs lining certain streets. From what I have witnessed, all of them are unwelcome in Palo Alto.
The homeless are also the bane of real-estate developers and their friends in government who, no matter how hard they try, cannot figure out how to make a profit off of the homeless.
So, instead of dealing with the “homeless crisis”, they have concocted for public consumption a similar sounding, but very profitable alternative crisis that they call the the “housing crisis”.
The “homeless crisis” is a crisis for people who don’t have a home and can’t afford a home anywhere. The “housing crisis” is a crisis for people who have a home, but can’t afford a home in Palo Alto.
> So, instead of dealing with the “homeless crisis”, they have concocted for public consumption a similar sounding, but very profitable alternative crisis that they call the the “housing crisis”.
Sounds like another set of buzzwords that parasitic RE agents like to use.
My parents passed away within 1 year of each other. I lived with them at their home near the PA Country Club for 15 years.
During the final years of their lives, my sister/Trustee petitioned for a conservatorship of their person and estate. She is now in control of the estate & along with her attorney, they have cut me off financially having revised a revocable trust during the time my parents were still alive. Both parents had no input or say at this point in time.
My sister is planning to sell the house & has evicted me. Because I never paid rent while I was living at home, I suspect she wants to punish me & keep the entire estate to herself.
I spoke with an attorney but he wants a $10K retainer with no guarantee of success. Better to take chances at Vegas for that amount of money.
I am now living in a parked rental car, wishing I owned an RV like so many others in similar predicaments.
No real job prospects as I am approaching 60 and minimum wage will still keep me in poverty.
Don’t really want to beg as it is demeaning. Maybe I’ll start a GoFundMe page.
Too bad the Grateful Dead aren’t still around…then I could follow the tour & justify living like this. No such luck.
I didn’t grow up in the ritzier neighborhoods of Palo Alto. My family resided near Ventura School & our family could be considered working class.
I went from Gunn > Foothill > SJS & graduated with a degree in computer science. During my four years of college, I worked a variety of low-paying P/T jobs to lessen the financial strain on my family who was also raising two other children.
I have been layed-off 3 times due to various corporate ‘cutbacks’ & I believe this is my last go-around in the high-tech world.
Lost paycheck > no more rent money. I was paying $2750.00 for a small 1BR/1B apartment in PA. I was evicted & am now living on the streets. Sold my car because I could no longer keep up the payments & insurance. Nothing fancy…just a 2014 Honda Civic.
Most of the folks who convey their online concerns about rising rents & the homeless couldn’t care less. Just a bunch of armchair liberals driving their Volvos & eating out every other night at high-priced restaurants.
Good for them. Last night I had Taco Bell but am grateful even for that.
QUOTE: Most folks in PA town could care less about the plight of the homeless.
I suspect that 85-90% would prefer that the homeless go elsewhere.
The convenient proximity to stores makes PA an ideal site for homeless RV owners.
I recently relocated here from Clear Lake. Palo Alto is a relatively safe community and has its advantages.
Since the rents are so high, I might as well continue living in my mobile home. Having to move it every so often is not a problem and I’ve noticed there are many others who are doing the same.
Small price to pay for living in PA.
In case you all have not noticed homes are turning over in PA with a regular drumbeat. In order to sell a home in PA it has to be brought up to code and repainted, and resolution of any outstanding problems. Or identification of a problem to be resolved by a new owner. When a home is sold the property value for tax purposes is restated at the current market value – selling price. So the city, county, and state benefit by the continual turn over of homes. That increase in taxes benefits the school system, city, county, and state. Blaming the RE people here is not logical – yes they are in a business but eventually everyone benefits. So if every one is upgrading their homes and landscaping – which they are – then the whole city benefits. The house value in any one block is upgraded in conjunction with the upgrade in the other homes in the neighborhood. Churches also have limitations on their properties and have to maintain code requirements. So bottom line the city can benefit by creating a homeless location/home as opposed to people randomly wandering the streets. People, and churches/institutions have financial limitations and defined property limitations so the city should be allocating some city/county owned property for this location.
As to the people who were working and are now out of a job and RV people – why aren’t you in a larger city that has more opportunities for homes and jobs? I have lived and worked all over CA based on job opportunities. Sitting here and complaining when you could have better opportunities in a larger city does not make sense. And what is so great about PA that you have to live here? Sorry that argument does not fly. You could do better in LA or San Diego. Yes – PA is better than Clear Lake but LA has more opportunities for work and cheaper rents. It is not that people don’t like homeless people since the reasons for homelessness are varied it is that there are better places with more opportunities they are refusing to consider. Las Vegas is another location which can provide more opportunities.
Just like to add that the zip codes on the peninsula are considered the highest in land value in the US. So why do people who do not have jobs zero into this location? In part it is because the former mayor of SF – now running for Governor – started programs for rewarding homeless to come to this area. Realistically – if you do not have the resume and background experience for the job market in this location then why do you expect to get a job here? You should be in a larger labor pool area and build your resume and experience to transfer that to a job in this location. And why is the city letting all of the RV people into this city? Do not see any in Menlo Park – but wait that is San Mateo County. Isn’t our police chief from MP? SU is a beautiful campus but no one can see it because the RV’s are on El Camino. So much for our beautiful city and university that is suppose to be top ranked. Who ever is on the PACC that is supporting this has got to justify why they have encouraged this.
Proximity to stores? I have to laugh – Town and Country Shopping Center is not the low rent district and these are not the cheaper stores. I do not see that as a selling point for being here. There is a bottom line – each person has to negotiate their life choices throughout life. School, college, job after college, where to live while going to school and after school – these are all individual choices. If one avenue is not working you go down a different avenue and self correct.
RWC and MP have stores and good shopping – but everyone is coming here? Something else is going on here – they do not allow RV’s on city streets?
QUOTE: Proximity to stores? I have to laugh – Town and Country Shopping Center is not the low rent district and these are not the cheaper stores.
I doubt if many of the RV homeless are doing their shopping at Town & Country (even the ones parked across ECR).
Most of the RVs that I have seen are parked behind strip malls and along major thoroughfares.
Actually, many RV and car dwellers have jobs. Many work at construction at Stanford and go home on weekends. Palo Alto businesses have many openings for lower paid jobs – restaurants, senior housing, and retail in general etc etc. There are loads of good jobs here but housing for those lower paid positions are hours away. It doesn’t surprise me that many choose to sleep over in their vehicles and go home when they have several days off. Most of our firehouses have places for off-duty firefighters to sleep, since many of them choose to maximize the value of their $100K salaries and live hours away. Face it, most families prefer to have a single family house and a yard – and many of them are prepared to live hours away in order to take advantage of higher wages on the Peninsula. Most put up with horrible commutes. Some choose to sleep in their vehicles or couch surf at friends houses and go home intermittently.
To think that vehicle dwellers are here only to take advantage of homeless benefits is to downplay the real problems we face here – way too little low-to-moderate income housing. I would love to see the results of an more accurate survey of vehicle dwellers. My guess is that over half are not homeless but are here temporarily for jobs and medical treatment.
Some RV dwellers are patients at Stanford Hospital needing daily outpatient treatments and can’t afford $300+ hotels. Stanford has some housing for patients, but not nearly enough to meet demand. Stanford should take more responsibility for its patients and for outsourced contractors living in RV’s. It is not enough to say that is the job of their contractors. When Stanford does not pay its contractors enough to hire people who can live in the vicinity, then they need to step up and provide places for their workers from the valley to park their RV’s. This is just another case of Stanford outsourcing the true cost of their development to the residents of Palo Alto.
@resident
I currently rent an older RV and am fortunate to be able to live in just about any part of Palo Alto providing I move it from time to time. In the past, I have resided in Midtown, Charleston, Ventura, Barron Park & across from Town and Country Village.
A sympathetic homeless advocate who currently owns a house (in an undisclosed PA neighborhood) has given me permission to park in his driveway for a couple of weeks and that will probably be my next destination. You see, there are some Palo Alto residents who actually care about others and not extrinsic property valuations.
While living in an RV has its drawbacks, I have managed to avoid the high PA rents. In time, I hope to purchase a used RV of my own as I now consider myself a part of not one, but several Palo Alto neighborhoods (depending upon where I am parked at the given moment).
With a POB in Palo Alto and my Palo Alto Library card, I now consider myself a full-time resident.
I am confused as to why the RV owners identify with Palo Alto. Why is it important to be in this town vs some other town. Maybe you all can explain that. There is a RV park in RWC and a RV park is EPA. At least at those location you can hook up to electricity and other services. I would think that hooking up to power services would be the place to be. You do not have any hookups on El Camino. Maybe people can input how they came to PA and where they heard about it. It is not about whether others are caring or not caring – it is about if the actual person is working to resolve their own issues regarding their life. If we all know that there are larger cities in which there are more job opportunities then why wouldn’t a person make those decisions. I personally think RWC is a better town and they have their act together.
About 5 years ago the media, esp. local media started doing glamour lifestyle articles of the joys of RV living and the smart savvy young couples profiled who saved so much in rent by choosing the RV life. Those articles coincided with the huge pr blitz by former Planning Commissioner Kate Downing on how her family just couldn’t make it here on their combined income of $300K or $400K. Often the RV pieces ran simultaneously with the Downing story as the RV stories got national and then international attention.
Two stuck with me: a profile of a Stanford couple; he was a grad student and she was an artist who didn’t have to get a job because of all the rent money they saved. Another profiled a Google couple who made many friends in their RV community. This month Sunset has a major feature on rv living discussing the evolution of RVs since the VW buses decades ago.
Combine that with the drumbeat of coverage of our high real estate prices — rat-infested house in PA for $2.? million, empty lot for $5,5M, rental penthouse for $35,000 a month (just this week) — and you’ll see “why Palo Alto” and Silicon Valley, And other tech hubs like Seattle.
Also because of all the pieces about the high rents here, the high average salaries for tech workers, the 6-figure incomes that qualify as low- and moderate income for assisted housing and the displacement of tenants in affordable housing like The President Hotel.
In case you have not noticed the state of CA is burning – and it is major housing developments that are burning. To that end we have many parkers on the street who are employees or visitors of large institutions within walking distance. The end result is trash on the street including cigarette butts, in one case human waste, broken car parts where they were fixing cars on the street and leaving what ever behind. Add to that sections where the neighbors are not picking up the tree trash outside their fences which they somehow do not think they are responsible for what goes on outside their fences. That leaves other people who are advocates for clean, beautiful streets to keep picking up the messes. I am an advocate for keeping our city safe from deterioration and potential loss. And the news in the SFC about SF streets and other cities burning is on the plus side for advocacy on clean cities. People who want to be advocates for what ever need to focus on other alternatives to resolve their advocacy. That includes the city and PACC designating an area that can be patrolled that does not conflict with the many advocates who would like a clean, safe city. I have had people sleeping in their cars outside and that is not going to happen again – they are wandering around before day break looking for a place to relieve themselves. So possibly these articles are suppose to be meant to gauge the overall sentiment of what the city needs to deal with. If that is the strategy than other advocates needs to tell the city to get their act together to make specific areas for resolution. And that is not r-1 residential streets. So if people are planting articles to push agendas then game on – other advocates have lots of examples where what ever does not work.
QUOTE: So bottom line the city can benefit by creating a homeless location/home as opposed to people randomly wandering the streets.
There you go. Establish an area in PA where the homeless RVs can park. The city could even attach a moderate ‘usage fee’ as well, making the concept a revenue generating resource.
The incentive: the collected fees go directly to the PA neighborhoods/areas permitting the RVs to park there.
The people in Sunset magazine are staying in designated campgrounds – KOA, State Parks, National Parks, and commercial entities set up for that purpose. Also the parking lots for state beaches. People also stay at Walmart parking lots. They are going to designated locations which are monitored. And many have hook-ups, bathrooms, and equivalent 7-11 stores for food items.
As to construction workers for large projects specific to SU they should be asking the construction companies if they have accommodated the construction workers or do they need space on SU campus for that purpose. Here is where you get into the insurance liability issue – they do not want to spend the money for the liability issue. In a previous time in PA a large company had a number of people who stayed in RV’s during the week and it had space for them on the property. It assumed the liability for the employees who worked for the company. And those employees could use the gym facilities for clean up. Another large company has a space at Moffat where employees can store their RV’s when not in use. The logistics have already been worked out by responsible companies relative to their employees. Sounds like we are now looking at the construction companies that have not accommodated the insurance liability issue into their pricing for jobs. And SU does not want to accommodate the workers for their mega-projects. I think we know where the money here is and it is not in the direct hands of the neighborhoods. Churches also have insurance liability issues so any property anywhere has designated purpose which have been priced out for type of use.
This article is about housing – not RV’s. So how did this go off on a tangent about RV’s? And the housing is for people who have signed up for it. I hope that housing referred to on this article is actual “housing” – not RV’s.
“I am confused as to why the RV owners identify with Palo Alto. Why is it important to be in this town vs some other town. Maybe you all can explain that.”
Because we were responding to that?
I suspect that the REAL reason some folks are so vehemently against RVs in Palo Alto is because the majority of these RVs are older, run-down models and the people living in them look kind of scruffy.
Now if these were late model, well-kept RVs and the folks were wearing Ralph Lauren (or some other designer brand clothing) it would be considered very chic and upscale…reflective of the upscale image Palo Alto is always trying to project.
Anti-homeless RVs advocates = snobbery of the worst kind.
I am currently shopping for an RV. Nothing fancy.
Recently laid-off from a well known MV tech company. Was drawing a pretty good salary but saved very little. Gave my 30-Day notice to the landlord as I’ve been paying over $4500/month rent + utilities. Planning to turn in my leased 2017 Audi coupe as well.
With 6 months unemployment due and a 3 month severance package, I should be OK for a few months. I can also apply for food stamps later down the road.
Not planning to look for another job right away. If I can get by for about $800.00/month living in a used RV, why bother?
I’m not out to impress anyone…anymore.
So look at all of the different postings on different subjects here. In one case people want to get rid of Palantir – it occupies space that it pays for and has paid employees. All type of reasons and aggravations associated with employed people and an active company. But then you have the homeless who are unemployed which you want to encourage to come here despite no job opportunities or place to live. Then you have mega building projects which pull in the RV construction workers that no one appears able to locate in one place. A small town a lot of diversity in approaches to governance.
Suggest that if SU wants a mega building project then they carve out a location on their property for the construction workers to park and live. That should be a requirement for mega projects. And El Camino is not their property. Others who are encouraging the homeless to come here need to then quit nagging about the people who do have jobs that live here. People who have invested in houses here and have jobs are nice people and want a safe place for their children. At some point all of these various approached to governance have to settle to what is achievable on this small piece of land. And cramming more people onto it is not the answer.
Want to comment on advocates. This city used to be concerned with safe neighborhoods, good schools, Little League, AYSO Soccer, and all other pursuits of young people who are carving out an area of specialty. And parents who volunteered their time to make it all happen. So that generation has moved out of the nest leaving a lot of energetic older people who are looking for an area they can devote some time and energy to. In the meantime the next generation of parents has moved in and expect the same level of safety in the neighborhoods where their children are growing up. If anyone is advocating for some action which puts the neighborhoods in danger then that is a misplaced advocacy. The city has the wherewithal to react to what ever the latest dilemma is and it is not in your neighborhood. If we have members on the PACC who are not working to keeping our city safe then watch out. It appears we are establishing some publicity for this city which is a drawing card for desperate people in other locals who need a landing pad. A bigger city has more avenues to respond to those issues. If we are suppose to be moving to a regional participation in resolving these issues then there are cities which have more resources. Please do not try and own what ever drama is occurring and let the city and county do their job.
I don’t have a problem with homeless RVs. People need a place to live and if that’s all they can afford, so be it.
QUOTE: Now if these were late model, well-kept RVs and the folks were wearing Ralph Lauren (or some other designer brand clothing) it would be considered very chic and upscale…reflective of the upscale image Palo Alto is always trying to project.
*laughing* I’m picturing a caravan of Mercedes 2500 Sprinter RV conversions lining the streets of PA with ‘beautiful people’ stepping out of them.
No one would be complaining then. Some would even be envious. *L*
County programs are often stifled by too much red tape. As a result, nothing noticeable ever gets done.
Nobody should be homeless except by choice.
With all of the big money circulating in the mid-peninsula, it’s surprising how this tragic life situation only exacerbates itself.
Probably because homelessness isn’t cool. It’s far more glamorous to hold $1000/plate galas for obscure diseases and art exhibits. That way the women can be photographed wearing their designer clothes while sipping champagne and the men
accompany them like grinning stooges in their various GQ wardrobes.
And in the end, they all feel so good about themselves having made the rounds. Then it’s hop back into their Audis/MBs/Teslas for the drive home while making small talk about who they ran into. Such phonies.
>>Such phonies.
The people who strive to appear regularly on the ‘high society’ pages usually are…
And the irony is that this ‘keeping up appearances’ endeavor isn’t really high society at all. It’s tacky publicity for social wannabes.
The joke’s on them.
Making the social rounds is about being pleasant and making the proper connections.
Homelessness is not pleasant and there are little if any connections to be made.
If the homeless presented themselves better, they would be far more pleasant to be around.
“Making the social rounds is about being pleasant and making the proper connections.”
I’ve been around some debutantes. Most are shallow and ‘unpleasant’ to associate with.