As housing for the poorest disappears, cost of shelter soars

whynot_31

NYC residents have a legally established "right to shelter". As housing for the poorest disappears, the costs of shelter soar. NYC is doing what it can to reduce shelter costs by creating rental assistance programs, but the costs continue to grow.

NYC is not making much progress. Does this play out with shelters becoming something like the permanent Almhouses of old?

http://www.ibo.nyc.ny.us/iboreports/further-increases-homeless-rental-assistance-additional-funds-for-shelter-still-necessary-may-2015.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almshouse

pragmaticguy

There's a bunch of shelters on St. Johns between Ralph and Howard and they look like they're kept in better shape than most housing projects. In addition, they're probably also better than most of the people who live there can get on their own so they may be reluctant to move out very quickly.

whynot_31

As a result of having state oversight (and being part of the ongoing political football between DeBlasio and Cuomo), many shelters are in pretty good shape: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cuomo-nyc-week-clean-homeless-shelters-article-1.2202935

For this and other reasons, some men would rather be in the shelters than 3/4 houses:
http://johnjayresearch.org/pri/files/2013/10/PRI-TQH-Report.pdf

The various types of housing for the extreme poor (supportive housing, shelters, 3/4 houses, etc) are not keeping up with the demand for them created by higher housing costs and prison downsizing.

emilyb

If you want to get an idea of what it's like to live in an S.R.O. where 99 percent of the tenants have Section 8 rent subsidies, check out www.kenmorehalltenantsassociation.blogspot.org, The organization that runs the place is totally corrupt. It's really sickening. I've had to explain to tenants over and over again that they actually have rights, and that a lot of what management is trying to do to them is in violation of NYC/NYS real property law.

whynot_31

Because so few private landlords still accept Section 8, tenants who rely upon Section 8 get the message that they should be thankful no matter how bad the housing conditions.

As a result, tenants are unlikely to to assert their rights.

Because the shelter system is so full, the city is unlikely to take action to protect their rights which may cause the SRO to be closed down or converted into "floor through market rate apartments".

The population we are discussing often has co-occurring substance abuse and psychiatric disorders, is over 50, and is on SSI/SSD.

Private landlords can often get better tenants who provide a greater ROI, so they do.

pragmaticguy

The funny thing is...I have clients who refuse to take section 8 people because before the city will accept an apartment for the program they come in and inspect every little thing and the owners don't always want to go through the hassle of all the repairs. Landlords used to love section 8 because they were guaranteed at least 80% of the monthly rent but the inspections have gotten tougher especially in older buildings where lead paint might be buried under four coats of latex.

whynot_31

Yes, HPD and the NYC nonprofits that locally administer Section 8 have come under increasing scrutiny from HUD (aka the feds) for not enforcing the standards.

https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_9143.pdf

Given that landlords can earn as much (if not more) than the amount provided by Section 8 without enduring the hassle/compliance of such inspections, they simply opt out of the program.

It is a classic case of "sorry, I have a better opportunity. This has been fun"

http://www.brooklynian.com/discussion/44907/781-washington-goes-market-rate#Item_1

whynot_31

After the recent press, the city is trying to move residents of 3/4 houses into the few affordable hotels in the city: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/nyregion/new-york-city-starts-moving-tenants-from-three-quarter-homes-but-others-are-left-behind.html?ref=nyregion&_r=1

Note, this is a population that the city previously paid $215 a month to house, possible only as a result of illegal supplemental funds from medicaid in the form of kickbacks to the 3/4 homes from alc/drug rehabs.

Now, the city will have to bear the full cost of the housing indefinitely and it is not clear what will become of the rehabs that no longer have a patient base they had the power to make show up.

One of the rehabs mentioned is located at 666 Franklin Ave, near St. Marks:
North Crown Heights Family Outreach Center

pragmaticguy

Well, DiBlasio has a house in Park Slope he's not using for the next year or two. Maybe some folks can live there in the meantime.

whynot_31

I think it is more likely that the low to moderate priced hotels throughout the city will become quasi-permanent housing for this population, because the city must pay above market rates.

Meanwhile, traditional customers of these hotels will look to resources listed on Air BnB.

pragmaticguy

There have been quite a few of these housing type hotels built lately. There's one on Atlantic a few doors down from the men's shelter called the Kings Hotel but it's really a family shelter type place. There's also a few that I've seen on Linden Blvd in East New York that app[ear to be that also.

whynot_31

In the present market, such hotels seem like REALLY good investments. They are able to operate in commercial areas (such as M-1 zones) that prohibit residential uses, and the population being served does not have the power to be picky re: fumes, noise, etc.

Let's build some on Atlantic Ave by the elevated LIRR tracks!

Or by the bus repair shop near Albany Houses.....

whynot_31

For those not aware, the Department of Homeless Services has also started to contract with individual landlords at rates that make their clients the best payers.

For example, the residents of a multi unit building on Prospect Place were recently offered buy outs.  Four units took the deal.

The residents of the other units braced for what they believed would come next:
1.   Renovations of the adjacent apartments.
2.   Hipster invasion, complete with empty craft beer bottles and bicycles in the hallway.

However, what they received was:
1.   No renovations
2.  Large, homeless families.   

The landlord reportedly did the math and figured out that that he could make more money serving the non-rent stabilized homeless tenants than he would from the hipsters.    Plus, they would likely have the effect of causing a few of the long term tenants who didn't accept the buyout to flee sans buyout.  

If the landlord wants, he can always change his mind later:     He can cancel his contract with DHS and then renovate the building to the degree that it is free from RS rules.

dac545

2.   Hipster invasion, complete with empty craft beer bottles and bicycles in the hallway.

Hey, I only leave my empty craft beer bottles in the hall in case the beer fairy comes in the night..

whynot_31

Only in NYC does it make sense for a landlord to put in some homeless families to do his dirty work, while he awaits the arrival of the professional class that buys condos.

Once the professionals arrive, the landlord can sell all the units and retire.

whynot_31

DeBlasio pledges more money is on the way: http://www.wsj.com/articles/nyc-homeless-problem-vexes-city-hall-spurs-action-1438722501

I expect this to result in more of the above.

What was a good time to own rent stabilized units, is becoming a very good time.

whynot_31

DHS is not able (or willing) to distribute shelters evenly throughout the city. Here's where they have successully put the bulk of them:

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150824/belmont/map-10-community-districts-carry-bulk-of-citys-homeless-shelters

crownheightster

Where on prospect place?

emilyb

Not to be a pedantic bore or anything, but I'd like to quickly address some misconceptions about the population that uses shelters, SROs, section 8 housing...

There's a stereotype out there of what typical homeless people are like for a reason... it' s because many of them ARE that way (alcoholics, drug addicts, mentally ill, Add in formerly incarcerated and/or having a large family for extra misery points, and you've got the profile of folks you don't really want to have to live near (so stick them in a part of town you wouldn't want to live in yourself.) I understand. Really, I do. The stereotype fits many of my neighbors in a building in Gramercy Park (my address is a very nice one - but the building's an SRO, and it SUCKS). Factor in age (over 50) and under-educated/disempowered (unaware of basic civil and housing rights, including the entitlement to a decent warrant of habitability and repairs) and you've got a horrible situation.

On the other hand, there's a NEW profile for formerly homeless. If you met me on the street, you'd never know I'd been briefly homeless at one point (10 months, 9 years ago). I ended up in a private shelter for about 8 months after a drawn-out divorce that went very badly for me because I couldn't afford a lawyer and got assigned an 18B robot who didn't do squat. They're underpaid and overworked, but that's still no excuse for brain-dead and passive-aggressive. The shelter helped me get the benefits I hadn't been able to get earlier that might have helped me NOT land in the street; I know it's hard to believe that a white woman living in an "affluent" zipcode like 11215 would need help, but I'd been a stay-at-home mom for a number of years, and then developed COPD - when I was first diagnosed with the COPD, I'd been getting sick repeatedly with chest infections, and was sick as a dog, and it was difficult to hold a regular job for a while. Soon-to-be exhusband moved out, stopped paying my rent, and I ended up in Housing Court without a hope or a prayer after 6 months. I had no financial resources of my own at the time, and got totally screwed out of spousal support in Family Court. 

Meanwhile, I'd grown up middle class, got a BA from a good college, worked for years and supported myself... and had ended up living in Park Slope in the early 90s through mid 2000s, when Park Slope was still relatively affordable and fun. I've never been a drunk or junkie, and I'm completely sane. Nothing in my previous life had prepared me for having to cope with my new, screwed up life - especially the part where people that are in a position to offer (extremely limited) help expect you to be humble and grateful for crumbs. 

Things are better now, but it takes a long time to bounce back to something resembling what I was accustomed to before. I'm not really complaining... that expensive BA I got 35 years ago was in Anthropology (don't laugh, it helped me get work in several regional historical societies because my senior thesis topic crossed over into local history) and the Brooklyn Museum (because I'd done urban archaeology internships and was a quick study at organizing, classifying and dealing with artifacts, and didn't need as much training to fit into the accessions registrar's office) - living poor has been like field work in an area I'd never ever wanted to touch. 

So try not to classify or marginalize us po' folks... it can and does happen to all sorts of people. And some of us would be great neighbors... when I lived in the Slope (I was there for 15 years), I was very actively involved in my neighborhood, got grants from the Arts Council and the Civic Council to do arts programming in the area, worked at the Stone House, knew just about everyone on my block, etc. etc. etc.l

whynot_31

@crownheightster -
between Franklin and Classon.

@emilyb -
Yes, the factors that contributed to you ending up in shelter and your present SRO are compounded by the present macro factors. ...SROs are disappearing.

Supportive housing would provide some relief, but it takes years to construct. It also must be funded forever, and some politicians seem to believe that the present shelter crisis will go away.

"With due respect to the governor’s courageous stance on protecting tourists from bare nipples, there is a far more pressing issue to which the state would do well to lend a hand – a supportive housing plan for the tens of thousands of homeless people living in New York City. The number living in city shelters has reached 58,761, according to the most recent census by the Coalition for the Homeless, but it is most certainly higher than that, considering the homeless men, women and children squeezed out of the shelter system and forced to live on the streets."

http://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/there’s-a-pressing-issue-on-our-citys-streets,-and-it’s-not-topless-women.html#.Vdx2PLxVikq

whynot_31

@crownheightster -
The NYT did an article on the phenomena today:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/nyregion/new-york-relies-on-housing-program-it-deplores-as-homeless-ranks-swell.html?_r=0

pragmaticguy

Maybe there's a method to the madness. As Mitt Romney so famously said a few years back, and I paraphrase here...make a place crappy enough and people will self deport, so maybe everyone is hoping these people will move out of state.

crownheightster

The NYTimes did not do the family covered in the article any favors with their pictures. The comments on the NYT website are pretty awful. 

whynot_31

@pragmaticguy -
People who believe we are pursuing Mitt Romney's strategy implictly believe the government is pursuing a strategy of attrition.

From my vantage point, NYC gov is trying to adhere to the right to shelter, but is failing to create or maintain enough beds.

The Coalition for the Homeless is about to kick the city's butt again.

@crownheightster -
The article and its pictures accurately demonstrate why no one wants to house this population, and how quickly the residences created for them become in disarray.

....when formerly homeless families are successfully housed in non-shelter settings, they are the often first to be dragged to housing court to be evicted.

whynot_31

Until then, the city must continually increase funding:

"Mayor Bill de Blasio's administration is expanding a rental assistance program previously available only to homeless families to include homeless single adults and adult families, amid a rise in the number of single homeless adults in city shelters.

The new emergency measure — which would also allow families temporarily living with a friend or relative to keep getting rental assistance previously available only to those living in the city’s shelter system — is the administration's second major action in as many weeks to address a growing homelessness problem.

The New York Times reported late last month that the city planned to spend $10 million on new subsidies for tenants who face eviction, domestic violence survivors, recovering substance abusers who are leaving treatment and the residents of three-quarter homes."

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/09/8576319/city-expand-homeless-subsidies-single-adults

...with no end in sight.

whynot_31

Seeing that DeBlasio is cornered, the Comptroller begins to throw punches:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/nyregion/new-york-comptroller-clashes-with-mayor-de-blasio-over-shelter-contracts.html?referrer=

Coalition for the Homeless-
The ball will soon be in your court. File an injunction re: not meeting Callahan requirements, and force the city to have to create a real plan.

mugofmead111

Oops. 

whynot_31

Stringer is getting major points:

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/09/8576858/new-rules-rising-homeless-numbers-led-increased-shelter-contracts

pragmaticguy

The oxymoron here is that these people are not homeless. They have a home albeit it's in a shelter. It's just that the city pays the rent. They are not living on the street or in the Port Authority bus terminal. These people should just be called, "people who can't pay their own rent." And if you think that's heartless remember, you're the ones paying to keep them there.

mugofmead111

Playing devil's advocate here: Wouldn't the city (or state) be paying the rent of the homeless person if they are squatting in a public space (be it PABT or Penn station)? Trust me, I don't see the NYPD, the state police, or Amtrak police kicking them out.

re:"The oxymoron here is that these people are not homeless. They have a home albeit it's in a shelter. It's just that the city pays the rent. "
If that's the case, then more should be done for the "homeless" residents of 60 Clarkson, who have been in the news recently. If they're not "homeless", then they're tenants, which means generally you can't throw them out on such short notice. *shrug*

pragmaticguy

The point is....if you can't pay the rent, no matter where you're staying, the city is paying hence the taxpayers are paying. And the people of 60 Clarkson were officially relocated, they weren't put out on the street so even if they're in a crappier place they still have a roof over their heads. Hopefully it's not full of holes.