GlobeSt.com: What would a housing bond do to help the homeless in San Diego?

Russell: If we were successful in November 2018, the $900 million would provide possibly as many as 2,500 units of permanent supportive housing. It would take a significant number of those people living on the streets and put them in homes. Also, we would expect to see a similar number of units produced directed at seniors and veterans—those at risk for homelessness. Usually, it's a medical event, loss of a spouse or veterans who are pressed by benefits not keeping up with rate of rental increases that cause them to be homeless. The tranches of housing this would produce are permanent supportive housing for seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families for whom a job loss, catastrophe or car problem could lead to a homeless situation. Wages have grown so much slower than increased rents, and for folks on a fixed income, it's brutal out there. Seniors who are renters are the most supportive group in this poll—almost 90% of this group supported the bond. Homeowners were surprisingly concerned, with 64% of them supporting it. For senior renters, who are not seeing an increase in wages commensurate with cost-of-living increases, there is no hope of keeping up.

GlobeSt.com: How would the bond play out among developers and investors?

Russell: We would anticipate, inasmuch as this is a City of San Diego measure, that the housing commission would be the administrator and that the development community would work in tandem with the commission as it has in the past. In the affordable-housing world, the capital stack could be as many as 12 individual sources. It's complex, but we're leveraging what we raise here five to seven more times. The commission is a good partner in that they understand the complexity of these deals and matching up sources.

GlobeSt.com: Would the bond address the tight land issues that developers face in the county?

Russell: It doesn't have anything to do with that. It's a straightforward revenue measure. There's really no straightforward solution for land issues. Our capacity to build here is in urban neighborhoods in particular, and it will not be cheap; that's why subsidies are required.

GlobeSt.com: What else should our readers know about a housing bond and the homeless?

Russell: There are two ways people respond to the issue of homelessness right now: one is the “reality on the street” impact it has on their lives as they walk down the street. Some people experience that on a daily basis. Also, the simple fact is that we need to take care of these folks. Despite what many people will say, there's not steady stream of people being bussed here as homeless. These are uncles, aunts, parents and cousins from San Diego. The solution for homelessness is homes. Everybody deserves to have a decent home.

As far as social services go, these are not included in the bond. There have been a lot of discussions as to whether T&T should be increased to place in permanent supportive housing. If we're successful in getting 2,500 units built, services would cost $9,000 per person per year. It's a dollars-and-cents argument—it's far more humane and far cheaper than ER visits.

SAN DIEGO—If successful in November 2018, a $900-million housing bond could provide as many as 2,500 units of permanent supportive housing for people currently living on the streets, San Diego Housing Federation's executive director Stephen Russell tells GlobeSt.com. According to the organization, a new poll conducted by EMC Research shows that a strong majority of City of San Diego voters support a general-obligation bond to provide housing for homeless individuals and low-income families, seniors, veterans, and people living with disabilities.

In the poll which surveyed 600 voters in the City of San Diego between November 1 and 6 and has a margin of error of +/- 4%, 73% of likely voters stated that they would support a measure authorizing $900 million in bonds for the creation of affordable housing. Also, nearly 90% of voters support providing affordable rental homes for low-income families, seniors, veterans, and the disabled. Voters showed similarly strong support for providing 3,000 homes for those experiencing homelessness.

The poll also showed that even when informed the cost for such a bond would be $19 per $100,000 of assessed home value, well over 2/3 of respondents said they would support such a measure. “The most significant advantages of this approach are that it provides adequate funds to make a significant difference in addressing this problem, similar to initiatives in Los Angeles, San Mateo and San Francisco counties approved by voters last year, and it eliminates the risk of litigation and delays associated with unorthodox approaches proposed by other housing advocates,” said Russell in a prepared statement. He added that the polling was commissioned to help advance the community's dialogue about how to solve the homelessness and affordable housing crisis.

We spoke with Russell about how the housing bond would help, how developers and investors would be affected by it and whether or not it addresses tight land issues.

GlobeSt.com: What would a housing bond do to help the homeless in San Diego?

Russell: If we were successful in November 2018, the $900 million would provide possibly as many as 2,500 units of permanent supportive housing. It would take a significant number of those people living on the streets and put them in homes. Also, we would expect to see a similar number of units produced directed at seniors and veterans—those at risk for homelessness. Usually, it's a medical event, loss of a spouse or veterans who are pressed by benefits not keeping up with rate of rental increases that cause them to be homeless. The tranches of housing this would produce are permanent supportive housing for seniors, veterans, the disabled and working families for whom a job loss, catastrophe or car problem could lead to a homeless situation. Wages have grown so much slower than increased rents, and for folks on a fixed income, it's brutal out there. Seniors who are renters are the most supportive group in this poll—almost 90% of this group supported the bond. Homeowners were surprisingly concerned, with 64% of them supporting it. For senior renters, who are not seeing an increase in wages commensurate with cost-of-living increases, there is no hope of keeping up.

GlobeSt.com: How would the bond play out among developers and investors?

Russell: We would anticipate, inasmuch as this is a City of San Diego measure, that the housing commission would be the administrator and that the development community would work in tandem with the commission as it has in the past. In the affordable-housing world, the capital stack could be as many as 12 individual sources. It's complex, but we're leveraging what we raise here five to seven more times. The commission is a good partner in that they understand the complexity of these deals and matching up sources.

GlobeSt.com: Would the bond address the tight land issues that developers face in the county?

Russell: It doesn't have anything to do with that. It's a straightforward revenue measure. There's really no straightforward solution for land issues. Our capacity to build here is in urban neighborhoods in particular, and it will not be cheap; that's why subsidies are required.

GlobeSt.com: What else should our readers know about a housing bond and the homeless?

Russell: There are two ways people respond to the issue of homelessness right now: one is the “reality on the street” impact it has on their lives as they walk down the street. Some people experience that on a daily basis. Also, the simple fact is that we need to take care of these folks. Despite what many people will say, there's not steady stream of people being bussed here as homeless. These are uncles, aunts, parents and cousins from San Diego. The solution for homelessness is homes. Everybody deserves to have a decent home.

As far as social services go, these are not included in the bond. There have been a lot of discussions as to whether T&T should be increased to place in permanent supportive housing. If we're successful in getting 2,500 units built, services would cost $9,000 per person per year. It's a dollars-and-cents argument—it's far more humane and far cheaper than ER visits.