Introduction

“…the shortage of affordable housing is the greatest economic threat facing the region” (page 4)

“5.6% of households earning less than $35,000 per year were homeless in the previous year.” (page 9)

“As many as 11,893 people in the county were homeless at some point over the period of a year.” (page 9)

“Perhaps the most enlivening aspect of this most difficult issue is the fact that over the past few years we have done the research, created the reports, written the plans and solved the problems of housing and homelessness. All of the problems save one..” (page 19)

In Santa Cruz County 45% of all households spend 50% of their income on housing, and of those 21% pay more than 75%.[1]

The housing market in Santa Cruz County continues to price most homes out of reach, even for households earning the county median income of $74,600[2] in 2002, and the rental market, as well, remains inflated in spite of recent reductions. Santa Cruz County, as part of a general Central Coast housing trend, had an unprecedented increase in the cost of housing between 1999 and 2002. Even during the great economic boom, businesses and services experienced significant difficulty in finding workers that could afford the cost of housing. Positions for police officers, teachers, bus drivers and fire fighters remained unfilled. Only 20% of people living in Santa Cruz County can afford to purchase a median priced home[3]. Lower-income working people and those on fixed incomes are moving away or crowding into ever-smaller spaces because rents have been raised beyond what they can afford.

Homelessness in Santa Cruz County has increased during this period. 3.2% of households in Santa Cruz County have experienced homelessness at some time in the last year according to the Community Assessment Project Year 8, 2002[4] Report (CAP), a telephone survey of currently housed Santa Cruz County residents. That is more than double the percentage reported in 2001. 18-24 year olds were much more likely to have been homeless in the previous year with a shocking 9.1% reporting that they had been homeless. From the CAP 2002 Report we can project that he number of county residents who were housed in April 2002, at the time of the survey, who had experienced homelessness in the past year was close to 8,600.

But what about the number of county residents who were homeless in April 2002 when the survey was conducted, and therefore were not reflected in the CAP findings? The number of people homeless at the time of the CAP year 8 survey was probably close to the number of homeless persons counted in the last scientific Homeless Census taken in the year 2000. That number, 3,293 in 2000, was considered a conservative figure at the time and is probably still a conservative figure. A 25-city survey released in December 2002 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that requests for emergency shelter assistance grew an average of 19 percent in the 18 cities that reported an increase, the steepest rise in a decade[5]. It is plausible to add the 3,293 who were homeless at the time of the CAP 8 survey to the 8,600 who were housed at the time of the survey and said that they had been homeless in the previous year, to get a potential total number of people who had been homeless in Santa Cruz County at some time in the 12 months prior to the CAP 8 2002 survey.

We can project that 11,893 people may have been homeless at some time in the last year in Santa Cruz County, a sharp increase from the 8,558 reported in the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report[6].

This report will review current reports, research and real solutions related to housing and homelessness on the national, state/regional and on the Santa Cruz County level.

“…For the fourth year in a row, in no jurisdiction in the United States does a minimum wage job provide enough income for a household to afford the Fair Market Rate for a two bedroom home.”[7]

Since the 1980's federal housing policy has failed to respond adequately to the needs of low-income people. Currently, there is no state where minimum wage full time employment will cover the cost of a one-bedroom unit at that state's Fair Market Rent. In no state but Alaska will the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefit (formerly Aid to Families with Dependent Children) for a family of three pay for a two-bedroom unit at Fair Market Rent (FMR). FMR Housing "affordability" is defined as rent plus utilities comprising not more than 30 percent of income.

Low-income renter households with “worst case” housing needs are at an all time high of 7.9 million, or 23% of all renter households. These households do not receive federal housing assistance, are very low income (below 50% of the local area median, and pay more than half of their income for housing or live in severely substandard housing). The stock of rental housing affordable to low-income families is shrinking. Between 1993 and 1995 there was a loss of 900,000 very low-income rental units, a reduction of 9 percent. For extremely low income renters (incomes below 30% of area median) there was a 16% reduction in the number of units affordable. As a result low income families are becoming homeless, are living in overcrowded conditions, are doubled up, are paying precariously high percentages of their incomes for housing, or are living in dilapidated housing.[8] The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates low-income renter households exceed the number of low-cost rental units by 4.4 million, with nearly two low-income renters for every low-cost unit.[9]

There were 102.8 million households in the United States in 1999. Of these, 68.8 million (67%) were owners and 34.0 million (33%) were renters. Average Median Income (AMI) of renter households was $24,400, or 54% of median owner income ($45,400). 39% of renter households were very low income, with incomes below 50% of AMI; 22% had incomes below 30% of AMI.[10]

According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, families with children are the fastest growing homeless population, up from 27% in 1985 to 39% of the total in 2002. The U.S. Conference of Mayors study showed the demand for emergency shelter to be up 17 percent, the highest one-year increase of the decade. Requests for shelter by homeless families alone increased by 20 percent, with 88 percent of the cities reporting an increase.

Nationally, 30 percent of demands for emergency shelter went unmet and 38% of the shelter requests by homeless families are estimated to have gone unmet. 82 percent of the cities said that the length of time people are homeless had increased during the last year and that people are now homeless for an average of 6 months. Single men comprise 41 percent of the homeless population, families with children 41 percent, single women 13 percent and unaccompanied minors 5 percent. A single parent heads 73% of the homeless families in the survey. The homeless population is estimated to be 50 percent African-American, 35 percent white, 12 percent Latino, 2 percent Native American and one percent Asian. An average of 23 percent of homeless people in the cities are considered mentally ill; 32 percent are substance abusers; 22 percent are employed; and 10 percent are veterans.[11]

“It’s the dirt! Stratospheric land prices are the paramount reason the Bay Area has the nation's most expensive housing -- so costly that only a quarter of the households can afford a median-priced house. The shortage of affordable housing is the greatest economic threat facing the region, economists warn.”[12]

The high cost of housing has become a primary driving force of poverty in the United States and particularly in California. Regionally, seven Bay metro areas continually vie for the ignoble title of “Least Affordable Metro Housing Market” of the 191 metro areas in the country. Only an average of 8.3% of median income households living between Salinas and San Francisco in the first quarter of 2002 could purchase a median priced home. The San Francisco metro area has historically held the title of least affordable more often than any other metro area in the country, and the Santa Cruz/Watsonville area has come in 2^nd on a regular basis. In the first quarter of 2002, the most recent data available, Salinas was the least affordable metro area in the country and Santa Cruz/Watsonville was 2^nd.

Routinely firefighters, law-enforcement officers, teachers, nurses and other skilled and necessary workers have found that they cannot buy a home and have chosen to move to areas where they qualify for home loans, leaving behind cities and counties that have an increasingly difficult time in filling essential emergency services positions. Perhaps the greatest difficulty, according to Steve Belcher, Santa Cruz City Chief of Police, is what he calls “the Brain Drain”; the constant “loss of skilled, experienced, officers who know the area and are replaced with new and less experienced officers” right out of the academy.

It’s the same at fire departments, schools, city and county governement, and hospitals.

People living on fixed incomes or lower wages are not only priced out of home ownership, but are also finding it impossible to rent within the inflated Central Coast housing market. Many schools are reporting lower class attendance because families are moving to areas they can better afford. School enrollment in Santa Cruz County decreased by 1.3% between school year 2000/01 and 2001/02.[13] Over 40% of households in Santa Cruz County pay half of their income for housing, and for households earning less than $35,000 60% pay half of their income or more for housing and over 30% of those households pay more than three quarters of their income for housing. It’s no wonder that they are leaving.

It is difficult to conclude anything other than that the housing market has broken on the Central Coast.

In California, only one family in eleven, eligible for publicly assisted housing, receives it. One million people experience homelessness in any given year, with an estimated 150,000-300,000 homeless on any given day.[14] Until recently the California commitment to affordable housing, or the lack of it, had resulted in approximately a 100,000-unit deficit per year over the past 10 years. Even with a State Housing Bond budget of over $1 billion in the year 2002, more than in any year for the past decade, we are far from able to meet the growing need for affordable housing.

California renter households “bear the brunt” of the crisis. Of the over four million renter households in the state’s metropolitan areas, a quarter, one million, spend more than half of their income on rent. There is a 2 to 1 gap between the number of low-income metropolitan California households and the number of available low-income rental units. According the California Budget Project, by 2002 that number had grown to 651,000 units needed in the city areas of the state.[15] Some significant “Housing Facts” about California are highlighted in the report:

§ California’s homeownership rate in 2001 was only 58%, compared to 68% for the nation as a whole

§ California issued building permits for only 1.4 million housing units between 1990 and 2001, compared to 2 million in the 1980s and 2.2 million in the 1970s. During the 1980s, multifamily housing represented nearly half (45%) of new permits issued, compared to only a quarter (26%) between 1990 and 2001.

§ California needs to add at least 200,000 housing units per year, through the year 2020, in order to meet projected demand. Between 1990 and 2001, an average of 116,922 permits were issued per year.

§ California added 4 jobs for each new unit of housing from 1994 to 2001, more than twice the 1.5-1 ratio recommended by housing policy experts.

§ Only 34% of California households in 2001 could afford to buy the median priced home in their area, compared to 57% nationally

“The state of housing affordability, in Santa Cruz County, among households that take home $35,000 or less per year is significantly more perilous than for median income households. 64.7% of these households pay more than 50% of their income toward rent/housing, and 40% pay more than 75%”

The Santa Cruz County housing market remains one of the least affordable in the nation. In Santa Cruz County, rent increases of 30% in a year were commonplace between 1999 and 2002 and 100% increases in once low-income rentals were not unheard of. Currently, in spite of a sluggish economy and a slowing housing market, Santa Cruz County's affordable housing issues are attenuated by a general and regional housing shortage that drives up the cost of rent. At $1,298/month for a two-bedroom unit, Santa Cruz County Fair Market Rent is one of the least affordable in the state after Oakland at $1,374, San Francisco at $1,940, and San Jose at $1,760.

For many Santa Cruz County families, the hope of owning or even renting their own home has slipped away. Soaring home prices and rents have increased faster than incomes and have had a significant impact on the housing and job market. Low and moderate income people are being replaced by significantly more well-heeled folk from the Silicon Valley who have found an impossibly expensive housing market there and have been more and more willing to commute from as far away as Marin County to the North, Oakland and beyond to the East and as far South as Salinas and are able to afford rent and purchase at almost any price and so have driven up the cost of housing beyond the limit of most households.

According to the California Association of Realtors the median price of an existing, single-family detached home in California hit a new record during the first quarter of 2003, rising 14.3 percent to $337,780. Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California amounted to 573,030 for the first quarter of 2003 at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, a 3.5 percent decrease from 593,620 in the first quarter of 2002.

The California Association of Realtors first quarter listing for Santa Cruz County also showed an increase in median priced homes for sale when compared to the first quarter of 2002. The following chart shows the increases for the Boulder Creek and Aptos areas of the unincorporated areas of the county as well as the cities of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville.[16]

The income that a renter household needs to be able to afford rental housing should be no more than 30% of Fair Market Rent (FMR), which is generally accepted as the standard for affordability established by Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In Santa Cruz County, according the United Way’s Community Assessment Project report for 2002, 45% of the county households pay more than 50% of their income for housing. 21% pay 75% or more of their take home pay on housing costs.[17]

The state of housing affordability, in Santa Cruz County, among households that take home $35,000 or less per year is significantly more perilous than for median income households. 64.7% of these households pay more than 50% of their income toward rent/housing, and 40% pay more than 75%.[18] Latino households are also more likely to spend a greater percentage of their income on housing related expenses. 68% of Latino households’ pay 50% of their income on housing and 45% pay more than 75%.

Households that pay more than 50% of their income on housing are much more likely to find creative and sometimes less than ideal ways of coping with their situation. The Community Assessment Project survey found that households that pay 50% or more of their income for housing are more likely to share housing with other families. In fact, 61% now share housing, up almost 10% in the last two years. 48% indicated that they have had to live temporarily with family or friends; 37% have had to move when they didn’t want to; 27% live in an over-crowded unit and 16% live in a unit with inadequate plumbing, heat or electricity.[19]

When low income people lose their housing through eviction, unaffordable rent increase or any other reason, they are often unable to find replacement housing and are being forced to move out of Santa Cruz County to less expensive communities or onto the street.

“567 respondents reported housing problems. Of those, “34% said they had leaking faucets or plumbing, 33% said they had cracked, peeling or chipped paint, 25% said they had a leaky ceiling”

The Salinas and Pajaro Valleys are two of the richest and most productive agricultural regions in the nation and while the crop production value is almost 2.5 billion dollars, the wages and housing conditions of the farmworkers are substandard and the working conditions are harsh and in many cases hazardous.

In a report called the Farmworker Housing and Health Assessment Study – Salinas and Pajaro Valley Final Report, June 2001, prepared for the counties of Monterey and Santa Cruz and released in early June of 2001 by Applied Survey Research and The Center for Community Advocacy, a large body of comparative statistical data illustrates the current severity of housing and health issues that affect seasonal and migrant farmworkers. The report found that farmworkers had the lowest average family income of any other occupational category; $12,825 for Monterey County and $15,006 for Santa Cruz County; that even in the face of their poverty less than half reported using health or social services for which they may have been eligible; that only 25% had health insurance. 32% of the farmworkers interviewed reported that they went to a hospital emergency room when they or a family member was sick.[20]

Of the 780 interviews conducted for the report 567 respondents reported housing problems. Of those, “34% said they had leaking faucets or plumbing, 33% said they had cracked, peeling or chipped paint, 25% said they had a leaky ceiling. Such housing conditions do not meet HUD guidelines for decent housing”.

“3.2% of people who are housed in Santa Cruz County were homeless in the previous year, however, that startling statistic becomes more alarming when we note that 5.6% of households earning less than $35,000 per year were homeless in the previous year.” [21]

“…As many as 11,893 people in the county were homeless at some point over the period of a year.”

“…a homeless person is approximately 4 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime than a housed person.”

Perhaps the four most significant conclusions we have had about homeless people in the last few years are that:

1.) Of all the people who are going to become homeless in Santa Cruz County over the course of the coming year, most are currently housed. Prevention services are very important.

2.) Homeless people don’t come from somewhere else; they are mostly from Santa Cruz County and they are our neighbors, our sons and daughters, our friends.

3.) Homeless people overwhelmingly want to live in a home; they are not homeless because they want to be.

4.) Most people are homeless for less than 6 months. Most people cycle in and out of homelessness.[22]

The Community Assessment Project report for 2002 found that 3.2% of people who were housed at the time of the survey in Santa Cruz County were homeless at some time in the previous year, almost double the 1.5% in 2001. However, that startling statistic becomes more alarming when we note that 5.6% of households earning less than $35,000 per year were homeless in the previous year. In a county of 260,000 that adds up to about 8,320 people who were housed at the time of the survey and were homeless at some time in the previous year. And that doesn’t count the number of people who were homeless at the time of the CAP Survey and thus could not have been counted.

The number of people homeless at the time of the CAP survey was probably close to the number of homeless persons counted in the last scientific Homeless Census taken in the year 2000. That number, 3,293 in 2000, was considered a conservative figure at the time and is probably still a conservative figure since a 25-city survey released in December 2002 by the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that requests for emergency shelter assistance grew an average of 19 percent in the 18 cities that reported an increase, the steepest rise in a decade[23]. Therefore, it is plausible to assume that, conservatively, 3,293 people were probably homeless when the CAP survey was conducted. We can then add that number to the 8,600 housed people projected from the CAP survey to get a potential total number of people who had been homeless in Santa Cruz County at some time in the year preceding the 2002 CAP Survey.

We project that 11,893 people may have been homeless at some time in the last year in Santa Cruz County, a sharp increase from the 8,558 reported in the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report[24].

The Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment remains the most thorough and current study available providing information about homelessness in Santa Cruz County. That study estimated that the daily number of homeless individuals in Santa Cruz County had increased by 200% over the last decade. Up from 1,187 in 1990 to 3,293 in 2000, the Report estimated that as many as 8,558 people in the county were homeless at some point over the period of a year. The good news in comparing homelessness in 2000 to 1990 was that county wide, in 2000, we were able to provide emergency and transitional shelter to more people than were homeless in the year 1990. The bad news was that, countywide, there were still 626 shelterless people and 982 people living in their vehicles, and the shelters were full with waiting lists.[25] Few new shelter resources have been developed since 2000.

More than half of homeless people were between the ages of 30 and 50 and more than half have children. Surprisingly 28.4% said that they grew up in Santa Cruz County and the report contradicted a common misconception, the “magnet theory”, that homeless people came from somewhere else. In fact, more than two thirds reported that their last permanent housing was in Santa Cruz County. Only one in 10 cited their last permanent housing in another U.S. State. 81% have lived here for more than a year and of those more than half said they had lived in Santa Cruz County for more than ten years and 23% have lived here for more than twenty years.[26]

People said that they were homeless because of money, lack of a job and the cost of housing.

People don’t want to be homeless. 94% said that they would choose to be in permanent housing, now, if it were available.

Homeless people in 2000 had been homeless longer than in 1990. Half had been homeless for more than a year and long-term homelessness (more than 2 years) had increased to 32% in 2000 up from 13% in 1990. People also indicated that nearly half (45%) had been homeless before their last permanent housing indicating significant “episodic homelessness” in addition to “temporary or chronic” homelessness.

Homeless people chose to live here not because of the services available but because they knew people here (48%), because of the beauty/appeal of the area (43%), familiarity with the area (42%), the weather (38%), and having family in the area as well as feeling safe here (35%). (People could choose more than one reason so it won’t add up to 100%)

The Homeless 2000 Census found that many homeless people were on waiting lists for some type of housing assistance with half (55%) on a Housing Authority waiting list. One fifth tried to use a shelter and were turned away with 47% stating that the reason they were turned away from shelter was that the shelters were full.[27] People also indicated that there were reasons they wouldn’t want to go to a shelter including: fear of the other people at the shelters; that they have children; the living conditions; lack of freedom; that shelters were too strict and confining; and the “mental illness, drug and alcohol” atmosphere.[28]

One third of homeless people are working and one tenth are working full time. That adds up to approximately 1,100 people who are working at least part time including 340 who are working full time but remain homeless.[29]

30% of homeless people said they are hungry; they simply do not eat often enough. 20% ate only one meal a day and only 32% ate three meals per day. Fewer homeless people had health coverage (47%) than housed people (83%) and 28% said that there was a time in the last 12 months that they needed health care and did not receive it.[30]

24% of respondents had been arrested in the last 12 months including 99 who had been cited for camping, sleeping or covering up with a blanket, 93 who had been arrested on drug or alcohol related activities and 30 for traffic or bail violations. Homeless people are 4 times as likely to be the victim of an assault as a housed person, and 72 people said they had been physically beaten, 65 said they had been robbed and 13 had been sexually assaulted.[31]

On June 1, 2001 a new closure order took effect regarding camping rules in the Santa Cruz District State Parks. [32] In effect the new rule stated that after a total of 30 days in any one campground or a total of 30 days in any combination of seven State campgrounds in Santa Cruz County, campers may not continue to register to camp or they will be in violation of the law. The 30-day limit is a local rule established by the Santa Cruz District Superintendent of State Parks. The effect of the rule on homeless campers is unclear.

An unknown number of people have been using the State Park system as temporary housing while in between rentals. As was stated above over 9% of Santa Cruz County households earning less than $15,000 per year cycle in and out of homelessness each year. As many as half of the 11,893 people who are homeless in Santa Cruz County at some point in the year may make use of the park system as the last legal place to camp. Survey results indicated that a large percentage of the over 900 vehicularly housed people counted in the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census are not making use of homeless services and may be parking both legally at campgrounds and illegally on county roads.

Loss of the possibility of parking and camping overnight in the State Park system for more than 30 days has created increased illegal camping and parking. As a result of the loss of this un-official but important resource to people who are temporarily without shelter there has been a net loss in emergency shelter available in Santa Cruz County.

Another document gives us a sense of just how difficult and dangerous, and lonely it is to be homeless. At the beginning of 2002 the Chief of Police of the City of Santa Cruz, in a report to the City Manager called The Year 2001 Homeless Assaults Report, presented an analysis of the violent crimes in which a homeless person was recorded as a victim or suspect. The crimes listed in the report took place between January 1 2001 and December 31, 2001 and covered Battery, Domestic Battery (misdemeanor), Assault with a deadly Weapon, Robbery, Domestic Battery (felony), Rape and Murder. In the city that year there were 918 total violent crimes reported and of those 78 or 8% involved a homeless person.

54,593 people were counted, by the U.S. Census, in the City of Santa Cruz in 2000.[33] According to the Chief of Police, 840(918-78) violent crimes were commited against housed people in the city. Accordingly, a housed person would at the time have a 1.5% chance of being involved in a violent crime. At the same time, 78 violent crimes were committed against homeless people in the City of Santa Cruz. The Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment found that there were 1,273 homeless people in the City of Santa Cruz.[34] 6% of the people who were homeless in the City of Santa Cruz were either a victim or a suspect in a violent crime. 7 cases involved a homeless suspect only. 13 cases involved a homeless victim only and 58 cases involved both a homeless suspect and victim.[35] It seems that a homeless person is approximately 4 times more likely to be involved in a violent crime than a housed person.

Solutions to the seemingly intractable problems of housing affordability and homelessness in Santa Cruz County are not found easily or without significant effort. Solutions, however, are available. In this segment we will review two new documents that offer concrete and thoughtful responses to both housing and homelessness. Both documents came out of the shared vision, analysis, and time, of many Santa Cruz County people, including low-income people, over the past two years, who participated in planning, meeting, focus groups, and writing. Both documents are the result of our community coming together to focus our best energies on issues of serious consequence.

The first is called “The Housing Element: A Progressive Approach”[36], produced by the Progressive Housing Advocates Task Force (PHAT), a broad-based coalition of individuals and community groups dedicated to the development of “affordable housing for low and very low-income people throughout Santa Cruz County.” PHAT includes representatives of environmental groups, and advocates for the disabled, for homeless persons, for farmworkers, for children and seniors, and for low-wage workers who live and work in Santa Cruz County.

The second is called, “Five-Year Strategic Plan on Homelessness 2003-2008”[37] created by the Santa Cruz County Continuum of Care Coordinating Group (COC). The Plan, seeks to “create a comprehensive and coordinated system of affordable housing and support services for the prevention, reduction and eventual end of homelessness.” The County Board of Supervisors provided staff support from the Human Resources Agency and along with the cities of Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, Watsonville and Capitola funded the consulting services of HomeBase, a nonprofit technical service provider on issues related to homelessness. The COC brought together many people and organizations that make up the countywide system of services available to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.

The Progressive Housing Advocates stated goal is to facilitate the building of housing,.. a lot of housing,… for low, very low and extremely low-income households. The report, released in January of 2003, is the culmination of a year and a half of meetings, discussions, trainings and writing and re-writing. The intention was to articulate local land-use policy ideals that integrated progressive values pertaining to the protection of the natural environment and the “Green Belt”, supporting and maintaining our strong agricultural base and building and preserving housing that is affordable to the diverse populations that live in Santa Cruz County. The short term goal of the group is to insure that current efforts to write local County and City Housing Elements will result in a maximum of housing opportunities for low, very low and extremely low-income households by removing “discriminatory barriers, and by planning for housing development at increased densities, on existing transportation lines, employing green building materials and practices, incorporating child care, supportive services, and access for the mobility impaired in its design. Specifically, report calls for the following:

· Re-zoning of all centrally located residentially zoned land to urban high density, allowing residential uses as part of all commercial and industrial development, identifying parking lots as central sites, and permitting second-unit development with regulations identical to those of other home additions.

· Removing unreasonable height restrictions and leveling discriminatory fees, currently far higher per square foot for smaller, more affordable units than they are for larger unit development.

· Providing incentives to employers to house some portion of their workers or to contribute to a housing trust fund to create housing opportunities for low wage workers.

· Adopting governmental incentives for housing development that is environmentally sound, accessible to mobility impaired people, and which provides supportive services including childcare, job development, educational opportunities, mental health support, and financial planning. Incentives to include mandatory density bonuses, relaxed parking requirements, reduced design and setback requirements, waivers of fees, and opportunities to qualify for housing trust funds.

· Preserving existing affordable housing through amnesty for illegal units, targeted code enforcement tied to rehabilitation funding, the provision of emergency rental assistance for up to 60 days, and adoption of just cause eviction, rent stabilization, and rent shock ordinances to prevent existing rental housing from becoming even less affordable.

· Developing a housing trust fund to marshal available funds from public and private sources to for use in the rehabilitation and development of housing affordable to, and designed to meet the needs of, low wage workers, disabled persons, homeless households, farmworkers, single and teen-parent households, and constructed employing environmentally sound building practices.

· Implementing an anti-NIMBY plan for removal of the public hearing level of review for any proposed housing or mixed use development that is affordable to, and designed to meet the needs of, those portions of the population.

· Designating sites for the development of a minimum of 640 emergency shelter beds for individuals, and 400 units of emergency transitional housing, sites for supportive housing for single and teen parent households, as well as sites for supportive farmworker housing”[38]

The “Plan” admits that there are no “easy” fixes to homelessness, and the resulting document is not easy reading. Professionals who work with homeless people know that there are as many causes of homelessness as there are homeless people. If homelessness is a symptom, a presenting set of many, complex, converging societal dysfunctions; wage/housing cost disparity; alcoholism; physical or mental health issues; changing regional employment/unemployment patterns; immigration issues; the “broken” housing market; then solutions to homelessness must, of necessity, be as complex and varied. 80 pages long and two years in the making, the “Plan” responds to the solid, scientific data presented in both the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment, and the Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 8, 2002 report.

In spite of the complexity of the issues presented, the “Plan” responds to some “recurring ideas”, six themes, that become the basis of the community effort to reduce and prevent homelessness. The “Plan” that results is divided into five chapters that address key areas of need and the necessary “steps to guide implementation”.

Homelessness will exist until there is sufficient housing affordable to those with the lowest incomes. Accordingly, the number one priority in this community must be to take all action to ensure the preservation of existing and creation of new stable, affordable housing.

Prevention of homelessness must be a cornerstone of a Continuum of Care system. Most of the people who enter the homeless assistance system receive help and exit the system relatively quickly. But no sooner do people successfully exit the system than others replace them. This is why the number of homeless people does not go down. If we are going to end homelessness we must prevent people from becoming homeless.

Any successful effort to address homelessness must involve the support and collaboration and full engagement of the entire community, including the County, the Cities, service providers, the business sector, citizens, and people who are homeless or who formerly were homeless. While unique strategies are targeted to meet the needs of specific localities, coordinating efforts regionally, within the County and within the entire Bay Area, is necessary in order to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the County's efforts.

Coordination with mainstream, safety net service systems must be improved in order to better meet the needs of people who are homeless or at-risk and to provide greater long-term financial stability for the Continuum of Care system.

Homeless individuals benefit greatly from integrated support services programs, which coordinate the provision of housing, health, employment and other services to address the complex and interrelated barriers to self-sufficiency. These programs are highly successful and Santa Cruz County encourages the use of integrated services programs.

The Santa Cruz County Continuum of Care goes beyond an effort to create a full spectrum homeless assistance system that manages people's experience of homelessness. This is a long-term plan with specific, measurable, appropriate, realistic, time-bound and stakeholder-centered outcome statements and action steps related to systems changes. The Plan is not successful until system change is achieved.

I. Housing. Recognizing that increasing the availability and accessibility of housing affordable to those who are homeless or have extremely low incomes is key to reducing homelessness in Santa Cruz County, this chapter focuses on a variety of strategies to maintain and expand a full continuum of housing options, including emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive housing and permanent affordable housing….

To prevent homelessness, the “Plan” seeks to dramatically decrease the number of the lowest income households who lose their housing through emergency rental and utility assistance and eviction prevention measures, coupled with an increase in the housing units made available by landlords to low income families with subsidies through incentives to landlords, and ensure that people will not be discharged from public institutions into homelessness.

II. Jobs and Incomes. To realize the goal of self-sufficiency, this chapter’s outcome objectives and action steps seek to address the need for employment at living wages and removal of the barriers homeless people face in accessing public benefits.

III. Supportive Services. This chapter focuses on the provision of a broad range of support services, all of which are key to reducing the incidence of homelessness. In order to make the best use of resources and facilitate greater coordination in service provision, a key focus of the action steps in this chapter is on assisting mainstream agencies to more effectively meet the needs of homeless people, thus expanding the quantity and quality of services available to them.

IV. Health. …. the plan seeks to increase access to care and stresses measures, which are preventive in nature. Specifically, action steps call for continued support of the Homeless Persons Health Project, outreach and education about the availability of and enrollment in health care insurance programs, and an increase in the number of detox beds, especially for recidivists, parents with dependent children, and youth.

V. Plan Implementation. This chapter and its recommended action steps focus on enhancing the representation and expanding the functions of the Continuum of Care Coordination Group, renamed the Homeless Action Partnership and maintaining strong County and City involvement at the highest level in the Plan’s implementation. In particular, the Plan looks to the Partnership to play the lead in overseeing plan implementation through a Homeless Coordination Team … The Plan also calls for development of a memorandum of understanding between the jurisdictions for plan implementation. [39]

The high cost of housing has become the driving force of poverty in the United States and particularly in and around Santa Cruz County. Seven San Francisco Bay metro areas continually vie for the ignoble title of “Least Affordable Metro Housing Market” of the 191 metro areas in the country. An average of only 8.3% of median income households that live between Salinas and San Francisco can purchase an affordable home.

People living on fixed incomes or lower wages are not only priced out of home ownership, but also are finding it impossible to rent within the inflated Central Coast housing market. Over 40% of households in Santa Cruz County pay half of their income for housing, and for households earning less than $35,000 60% pay half of their income or more for housing and over 30% of those households pay more than three quarters of their income for housing.

11,893 people may have been homeless at some time in the last year in Santa Cruz County, a sharp increase from the 8,558 reported in the Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment Comprehensive Report[40].

Solutions are not found easily or without significant effort. Solutions, however, are available. In this report we reviewed two documents that offer concrete and thoughtful responses to both housing and homelessness

The first, called “The Housing Element: A Progressive Approach”[41], produced by the Progressive Housing Advocates Task Force (PHAT) and endorsed by CAB Inc., outlined a plan for the development of “affordable housing for low and very low and extremely low-income people throughout Santa Cruz County.”

The second, called, “Five-Year Strategic Plan on Homelessness 2003-2008”[42] created by the Santa Cruz County Continuum of Care Coordinating Group (COC), and endorsed by CAB Inc., outlines a way to “create a comprehensive and coordinated system of affordable housing and support services for the prevention, reduction and eventual end of homelessness.”

Perhaps the most enlivening aspect of this most difficult issue is the fact that over the past few years we have done the research, created the reports, written the plans and solved the problems of housing and homelessness. All of the problems save one.

Martin Luther King Jr. was right when he said that we know how to end poverty, we have the resources; we simply must build the “will”. When all is said and done, we must solve the last problem. We must build the will to end homelessness; to build and preserve affordable housing; to end poverty.

[1] The United Way of Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, year 8 – 2002, page 16, http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap_report.htm

[2] The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County Income Limits for Federal Programs- http://www.hacosantacruz.org/statistics/incomelimits.html

[3] The California Association of REALTORS® CALIFORNIA HOUSING AFFORDABILITY INDEX-Feb 03, http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzE4NDM=

[4] Ibid, http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/products/CAP8_Social1.pdf page 201

[5] U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Santa Cruz County	$443,250.00	$423,500.00	4.7%
Aptos	$550,000.00	$455,000.00	20.9%
Boulder Creek	$357,000.00	$305,000.00	17.0%
Santa Cruz	$480,000.00	$455,000.00	5.5%
Scotts Valley	$526,000.00	$506,250.00	3.9%
Watsonville	$365,000.00	$350,000.00	4.3%

Housing and Homelessness

In Santa Cruz County

June 2003