Absurd Redevelopment, Shame on Union, Report Belies Cynics

November 3, 2001

Dear Editor,

Frank Gruber's column ("The Santa Monica No-Development Agency," Nov. 2) describes an example of the worst sort of "planning" imaginable. The Civic Center Working Group should be ashamed of itself for its lack of understanding of a long and very intensive process and for the wasteful and short-sighted position it has adopted.

I hope there will be other forums where the issue can be debated and the absurd results of its "redevelopment" scheme reversed!

Alex Capron
Santa Monica

November 2, 2001

Dear Editor,

Vivian Rothstein makes it abundantly clear that the hotel union's true agenda is not in the best interest of hotel workers. Rothstein and the hotel union are only interested in what's best for Rothstein and the hotel union.

Your October 31 article ("Relief Center Organizers Say No to Hotel Donation") regarding the hotel union's refusal to accept a $4,000 donation earmarked for unemployed hotel workers demonstrates the hotel union is not seriously concerning itself with hotel workers who find themselves unemployed due to the serious economic downturn we are now experiencing in Santa Monica and across our nation.

But the hotel union's position does not come as a surprise to anyone who reads your paper and has followed the issue. The hotel union only wants more dues paying members so that people like Rothstein will have a job.

The hotel union's political support of city council members made it easy to accomplish this. But we all know that's what happens when a big money special interest like the hotel union uses money and influence to get something done.

Now all the hotel union has to do is sit back and encourage the hotels to let their workers join a union, which will allow the hotels to pay union wages far below what hotel workers now earn. Of course, those same poor hotel workers will then have to pay the union for the privilege of working for less money -- or else they won't be allowed to work at all.

Rothstein and the union have duped the clergy, the community, and most sadly of all, those poor hotel workers, into believing they actually care. Shame on you.

On a more hopeful note, perhaps the donation Rothstein and the union refused will go to some other organization, like the Westside Food Bank or St. Joseph's Center or any number of other organizations that truly want to help those in need. For they can better care for the unemployed hotel workers who don't get to feed at the same trough Rothstein and the hotel union do.

Sincerely,

Sarah Finerman
Santa Monica

October 31, 2001

Dear Editor,

A couple of weeks ago, I took quite a hit from several local "activists" who derided me for daring to suggest a connection between homelessness and housing affordability. They suggested that factors other than housing availabilty and affordability are at work. Certainly there is no small truth to that. But today, the Weingart Center, perhaps one of the nation's leading centers on the study of root causes of homelessness, released their latest findings.

I am directly quoting from their news release: "The authors conclude that 'the two-decade growth in homelessness is related to the function of housing markets rather than to the personal disabilities of the homeless population' and that making low-quality housing more affordable will, 'largely as a by-product, reduce homelessness.'"

Among the report's findings:

• A higher rental housing vacancy rate is associated with a lower incidence of homelessness;
• In the 4 largest metropolitan areas of California, there is a "powerful link" between increases in income inequality and increases in homelessness;
• Section 8 housing vouchers have "a significantly larger effect on homelessness than programs of equal total cost that subsidize landlords";
  

The report recommends that in order to reduce homelessness, local jurisdictions should "combine housing vouchers with credits to landlords which effectively deter removal of habitable units from the very low-end of the housing stock."

To further quote from the Weingart release: "The report examines the relationships among and between homelessness, income inequality, availability of housing, rent subsidies and other factors, focusing on California. The authors analyzed data from the California Homeless Assistance Program, estimates provided by counties as part of the Continuum of Care funding process, the US Census Bureau's S-night count and the Urban Insight publication, 'America's Homeless: Numbers, Characteristics, and Programs that Serve Them,' by Martha Burt and Barbara Cohen."

Now, I am certain that any discussion of the need for vouchers and credits to landlords will get many in our fair city jumping about how unfair rent regulation is by comparison. But there is no doubt that a pre-Costa Hawkins control on rents, especially including of vacancy controls, kept many homes in Santa Monica affordable that are now no longer so. It is also true that, in the era of "market" rents, many landlords who previously accepted Section 8 vouchers now refuse to continue to do so, even though HUD increased the amount of those vouchers considerably.

The resulting losses of affordable housing -- ie: increased costs, both here and throughout California -- have caused people higher up the income distribution ladder to lose their ability to pay for housing. In other words, they have become homeless. Those who responded with such indignant fervor to my suggestion that these things are connected, should read the Weingart Center's report. It can be viewed at http://www.ppic.org/#ppic151.

Is rent control the only answer to this housing policy problem? No, of course not. But neither is the tendency to blame the least fortunate in our society for their woes. Joe Weichman's statement -- "And another thing... homelessness is NOT about lack of housing. Many of Santa Monica's homeless choose to live on the streets. On top of that, many homeless people come here from all parts of the state (and country), expecting to be housed by the city" -- is perhaps the most cynical of all.