Town Square

Post a New Topic

State to withhold $1B in funding to spur more aggressive efforts to reduce homelessness

Original post made on Nov 6, 2022

California will withhold $1 billion in funding until the state's local governments develop new plans to reduce homelessness, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, November 6, 2022, 9:07 AM

Comments (6)

Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 6, 2022 at 9:04 pm

Annette is a registered user.

Interesting that a political animal like Newsom would announce this days before an election. I guess he figures the outcome is in the bag.

If the State is going to mandate all this housing, the State should fund it at a level sufficient to get the construction underway. Let's not forget that the surplus was in excess of $125B. A good chunk of that should have been dedicated to housing much earlier in this fiscal year.

And before the State enforces the questionable RHNA numbers, it should release a report disclosing the impact of COVID on housing demand, the impact of WFH on housing demand in cities like those in this area, the impact on housing demand of business departures to other states, and the vacancy rate of existing dwellings, including ghost houses. While they are at it, they can explain why there isn't a tax on house purchases by foreigners buying for an investment, not a place to live. I think this is being done in Vancouver. Why not here? The revenue could be used to fund affordable housing.

Posted by Helen Podesta
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 7, 2022 at 8:11 am

Helen Podesta is a registered user.

All Governor Newsom is saying is that in order to receive state funding to combat homelessness, cities must be more pro-active in their efforts.

"The current plans submitted by every county in the state and 13 of its largest cities under the grant program would only reduce homelessness by 2% by 2024, according to Newsom, a rate he called a failure "to meet the urgency of this moment."

The cities must do much better than a 2% reduction in homelessness by 2024.

If they cannot reduce homelessness by at least 25%-33% via their own efforts, this supplemental monetary resource from the state should be witheld.

Posted by EmmaP
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 8, 2022 at 11:35 am

EmmaP is a registered user.

"While they are at it, they can explain why there isn't a tax on house purchases by foreigners buying for an investment, not a place to live. I think this is being done in Vancouver. Why not here?"

Should it matter whether it is a foreigner or a US citizen who is buying for an investment and not planning to live there most of the year or rent out?

Actually the Vancouver _annual_ tax applies to 'empty homes' (unoccupied for more than 6 months in the year) no matter who owns them with some exceptions (e.g., owner died or is in long term care, building undergoing major redevelopment, etc.).
Web Link
There is a separate British Columbia "Speculation and vacancy tax" Also annual.

Posted by Clarice Lowell
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 8, 2022 at 1:46 pm

Clarice Lowell is a registered user.

Investment potential aside, why would anyone buy an expensive house in Palo Alto only to leave it vacant?

Why not rent it out for $5-6K per month and simply toss out the tenants when it comes time to sell?

Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Nov 8, 2022 at 4:15 pm

Anonymous is a registered user.

Well, there’s an endless supply of persons who wish to move here, so “homelessness” will never be solved.
How about checking if 1) were there local layoffs? 2) who are these persons demanding taxpayers supply them with homes, where are they from (why not go through government disability, section 8 housing vouchers, etc.) and why should they be granted a free or subsidized home in a random location (around here, it means in in a built up, high land value, highly educated worforce region).
I’ve read that some were kicked out of Section 8 housing, well then, why is this now us taxpayers’ problem??

Posted by Annette
a resident of College Terrace
on Nov 8, 2022 at 4:19 pm

Annette is a registered user.

@EmmaP - good point. I should have left out the word "foreigner". There are times when Stanford would be on the hook for quite a few houses in my neighborhood. It was particularly bothersome pre-pandemic to see all the commuter traffic AND vacant Stanford-owned houses.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Palo Alto Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

State Street Market plans overhaul of its eateries as it cuts ties with Bon Appétit, triggering layoffs
By The Peninsula Foodist | 11 comments | 3,825 views

Doing more with the natural spaces we have
By Sherry Listgarten | 6 comments | 2,335 views

How to Replace a Dry Red - Dry January Ends
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 1,365 views

“ . . . We have no way of knowing when our time is up . . .”
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,190 views