Recordings & Information from Past DWMC Events

Below, please find a description of, and link to, some of our previous events. We hope you enjoy!

Housing 911: An Immediate Threat to Humanity with the Democratic Women of Monterey County, CA

April 25, 2024

Below, please find the follow up responses which Alexa johnson, Executive director of the Housing Resource center of monterey county, answered via email.

1.     In America, multi-generational households are not the norm. Does this make housing availability more challenging in America as compared with other nations?

Unfortunately, America does not hold our seniors to the same standard as other nations do. This could be for a plethora of reasons, but seniors on fixed income struggle to make ends meet for housing and younger generations have a hard time taking care of their own rent, let alone the rent of their parents. It’s difficult to change an entire culture that is used to one way of thinking/doing things. We would need to change our mindset to support this type of housing and in return, housing would need to support this concept as well by not significantly increase the cost of rent when upgrading by one bedroom.

2.     If housing is a human right, how does that characterization change policy for development of solutions?

Housing is a human right and I think I mentioned on the panel that the hoops people have to go through to receive housing assistance doesn’t feel humane to me when you think about the types of questions that need to be answered, the personal information that is required to be shared, to complete strangers. I tell my staff, “Imagine you had to share your personal trials with a complete stranger. How would that impact you?” It’s not just one time you have to share these stories, it’s multiple times, agency after agency, county department after county department. When you don’t get the assistance, it’s heart-breaking and when you do, you feel like you had to jump through hoops to get there. It feels wrong to have a group of people that hear your story and decide if that meets criteria to receiving housing assistance. Housing should be accessible to all. 

3.     We all talk about rent, but doesn't this really start with the rising value of the homes that are sold? Buying a multifamily 24 unit building results in over $50,000/mo. payment. To profit, these units rent out for much higher than what they are now. How can this be addressed?

Government officials need to step in to address the need for low income housing. Builders should be held accountable for the low income housing they are responsible to build along with their high income housing. Incentives can be given to encourage low in come builds and an emphasis on housing our Monterey County residents before others outside the county is crucial as well. You can prevent someone from buying a home in Monterey County, but building housing with deed restrictions or low income housing specifically for Monterey County residents would aid our residents to be housed and improve the overall local economy as well.

4.     Is rent control "the answer" or part of a suit of opportunities to keep our community in their homes? Also, how does rent control help when rents are already sky high in our region?

I was at the Housing Authority Landlord Symposium and the voucher director answered a landlord’s question in response to rent increases by saying, “The payment standards set for subsidized units are set by HUD. However, if you can show me that your taxes increased or other property expenses occurred, in which you’d need to increase your rent further than the allotted amount, come talk to me.”

 I think we should have rent control in our area with the similar understanding that if a landlord has a legitimate reason for increasing it further, they present their documents to the city to demonstrate the need for higher rent. I understand landlord’s frustration in wanting to charge what they can for their property, but their business also affects the common good of our community. If they can show the rent needs to increase in order to: pay their mortgage, pay their property taxes, etc, I think landlords should be allowed the opportunity to discuss rent increases, but to increase because you can has proven to be rather problematic in these dark times for housing.

5.     In addition to the rent increase stopping, is there enough availability of houses? 

I think there are a lot of homes that are purchased as second and third homes that are vacant or used as vacation homes for themselves or Airbnb. Hotels are going up routinely. Those homes should be used to help those who are in need of housing now. If the owner is able to own more than one property and leave it vacant for half of the year, we should encourage them to rent out the property and a standard rent value, to assist with our housing crisis. The city and county can see in their records who owns multiple homes and I think if we looked into multiple home owners, as well as be open to the idea of roommates, multi-generational housing, etc, we could house our unhoused in our community.

6. The problem is large and obvious. What are the near-term and long-term solutions, if any?

Low income housing is needed but it’s not the short term solution and it is definitely not the most cost efficient. Investing in current landlords and providing funds for unit repairs, rental arrears, working with a homeless agency for the first time, is what is needed to keep landlords open to the idea of renting. After the eviction moratorium, landlords were looking to sell their properties as the idea of renting became too much of a liability. HRC’s Landlord Gold Standard program provides funding for that purpose and we have seen returning landlords who stopped working with our agency and new landlords who feel comfortable working with our agency, knowing we can help with financial situations, should the need arise. I think other housing non-profits should strive for the same type of funding so we can focus on those who are unhoused and making sure those folks get into housing as soon as possible.

7. $24 Billion has been spent in CA over the past 5 years and the effectiveness of this spending is being called into question in a recent audit, especially some emphasis of this spending has often been on shelter and transitory housing, which only temporarily houses individuals who often fall back into homelessness after. The more effective emphasis should be on permanent supportive housing options and more creative short-term available options such as tiny homes.

This is such a great topic and one I hear a lot. When others bring this up, I tell them to about what has occurred over the past five years. We had COVID-19, which impacted finding jobs, speaking with property management companies (they transitioned to working from home), shelter and transitional housing staff were in and out of work due to sickness/exposure, children were instructed to do their school work at home, causing parents to lose their job, the Eviction Moratorium kept folks in housing, even if they couldn’t pay their rent, meaning housing was occupied by an existing tenant. On top of all that we also are experiencing inflation and high cost of living. Even my staff, who work 40+ hours a week, live in Salinas and south county cities, and make a respectable wage, still have trouble making ends meet. So much has happened in five years, add an individual’s struggles and barriers to the mix, and it’s no wonder we’re seeing the effectiveness of shelters and transitional housing dwindle. I think shelters should be used for those who are waiting to get into a housing program or are currently enrolled in one, then transitional housing for those who are working through a non-housing situation that need shelter while they make those positive changes. Rapid re-housing should be reserved for those who are able to eventually live independently in housing, while permanent supportive housing would be reserved more for those who will never be able to live independently. The goal would be to work and ensure that the number of permanent supportive housing doesn’t increase throughout the years, and the work of the shelter, transitional housing, and rapid re-housing programs work together to rehouse those who become homeless and remove their crisis before it causes more permanent damage.

8. In a triage situation (in a budgetary sense), would you target existing at-risk renters or people who are already homeless? Can you choose? Is this an issue that would be solved by more funding or is it a political question- or something else?

People ask me all the time what I think would be the ideal housing structure for those homeless or at risk. I think we would need shelters, transitional housing, rapid re-housing and homeless prevention (RRH and HP), and permanent supportive housing (PSH) in place for us to be successful in actually reducing our homelessness count.

1.     Shelter: for those who need immediate shelter while waiting for a housing program or while working with one.

2.     Transitional housing: for those who are not ready for permanent housing yet but will be once they work through a non-housing need. Once that need is met and they feel comfortable focusing on housing, they can be referred to a RRH agency.

3.     RRH and HP Agencies: their purpose would be to quickly house those who are able to live independently on their own. Assist with rent temporarily and place folks into housing who need it.

4.     Permanent supportive housing: those folks who have experienced homelessness for so long, permanent case management may be needed to assist in independent living. This case management support would be needed for the duration of time that individual is in housing.

The goal would be to have 1-3 run so smoothly, that 4 never increases in size and solely exists to support those who have been unable to live independently and have been homeless for such a long time, independent housing placement may not be possible. When any of these pieces are missing, the other groups have to “pick up the slack” and that means serving people that we’re not trained to serve or house/shelter people with no proper plan in how they will be successful in the future. In my experience, I have not seen all four phases of housing fully funded and supported in our state. I think we’d need more funding, but also someone who understands the “chain of effects” and can ensure money is allocated efficiently and correctly, for the right purpose. If we keep putting in money in response to homelessness instead of preventing homelessness, we’ll always have an issue.

Mental Health and Well-Being in Monterey County, CA with the Democratic Women of Monterey County

May 30, 2024