Avalos tries to halt pending evictions of low-income familiesBy Rebecca Bowe
The toll that the economy is taking on low-income families was painfully apparent at yesterday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee hearing, when single mothers with weary eyes asked city supervisors to help them stay in their homes.
The hearing was being held to discuss Sup. John Avalos’ proposed legislation to extend a rental-subsidy program administered by the city’s Human Services Agency (HSA) from two years to a maximum of five years. “We have a recession that’s pretty deep, and it is affecting a lot of families in a pretty hard way,” Avalos said. “Families, especially low-income families, are finding it more and more difficult to maintain their employment.”
With unemployment soaring, and many of the people in this program facing challenges such as having a lack of marketable skills, health problems, or language barriers, work prospects are dwindling. Many of the people who testified during public comment said that they were within days of losing their rental subsidies.
“I’m scared to wind up out on the street with my kids,” a woman who spoke in Spanish said via a translator. Many people who enrolled in the program in 2007 have received letters telling them that the city can no longer provide the subsidy, because they’ve reached the program time limit. A phone number for a homeless shelter was listed among the suggested alternatives in the letters, but the shelter has a six-month waiting list. Meanwhile, there are an estimated 17,000 people on the wait-list for public housing in the city.
Throughout the public hearing, small children could be heard crying in the background.
The Board of Supervisors originally approved the rental-subsidy program to help low-income families who were living in SROs, staying in shelters, or temporarily doubling up with friends or family to be able to afford more stable housing and provide a safer and healthier environment for their kids.
It was based on the recommendations of a working group of community stakeholders convened in 2006, and implemented by the HSA in 2007. According to the Coalition on Homelessness, the two-year time limit was imposed by the HSA, contrary to the recommendations of the community members who fought for the subsidy in the first place. Through the program, parents can have an average of $470 per month applied toward their rent, which goes directly to their landlords.
To be eligible, the families must present a plan -- such as taking a second job or entering a vocational training program -- to be able to afford rent on their own within a year. If they miss the target, which works out to about a $6,000 boost in annual income, they’re eligible for a 12-month extension as long as they're in compliance with the program.
HSA staffers testified yesterday that some people have been granted additional extensions, bringing their total up to 36 months. But a handful of single moms who spoke during public comment said they’d received letters telling them they were to be terminated after 24 months, even though they were still in compliance. Avalos proposed a moratorium on the pending terminations in order to keep these people from getting evicted.
HSA staffers also told the committee that extending the time limit to five years would mean fewer people would be able to receive subsidies, and that they would have to stop accepting new applications for awhile in order reassess how money would be distributed. But Avalos pointed out that many people would be termed out long before the five-year mark, and emphasized that he was trying to help those at risk of homelessness who couldn’t realistically reach their goals in the allotted time.
Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, said the new five-year maximum should be passed because the downturn has dramatically affected low-income families, and that the economic climate is making it impossible for many to realize their goals of earning more. “If you increase the time limit, you can loosen up the eligibility criteria,” she pointed out, which would ultimately prevent more families from becoming homeless.
Avalos’ proposal to extend the time limit won the support of Land Use Committee members Sup. David Chiu and Sup. Eric Mar., but Sup. Sophie Maxwell voted no. “I wasn’t quite sure about the five years,” Maxwell explained to the Guardian later. She added that she thought the additional 12-month extension granted by the HSA was a good start, and that she plans to follow up with the department before the committee revisits the issue at its Oct. 19 meeting.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (6)
This isn't an article - it's a propaganda piece. I especially liked the "sad eyes" description and the wails of "crying babies."
Is it possible the Board of Supervisors will EVER pass a piece of legislation which benefits the MIDDLE class in this city?
Posted by Lucretia Snapples | October 6, 2009 07:10 PM
Actually, "Lucretia," it was "weary eyes" and "small children ... crying," both of which are accurate details that serve to describe the scene. What you read (?) was a factual account of a public meeting that included a variety of perspectives and reflected the dialogue and debate that took place. The fact that this proposed legislation does not resonate with your world view is not a legitimate reason to slam my article as mere propaganda.
Posted by Rebecca Bowe | October 7, 2009 10:51 AM
Hey Shane (a.k.a. Lucretia Snapple)
Do you cherish your virginity or are you just incapable of getting layed? In the meantime, keep working on those people skills.
Posted by Matt Stewart | October 7, 2009 11:03 AM
Matt, I'm keeping my virginity just for you. Yet knowing of your intensive drug use I'd advise you to try and get over the chronic case of crystal-dick which has plagued you for the past, oh, 15 years, before you take a shot.
Posted by Lucretia Snapples | October 7, 2009 09:14 PM
Seriously, everybody? Seriously?
Posted by Botellas | October 8, 2009 09:42 AM
If Maxwell doesn't ultimately support the extension, it's unlikely Dufty will either, eliminating the chance of overriding the likely mayoral veto. Pressure needs to be put on Maxwell and Dufty to support the extension, not least because, as the article points out, not all people who need an extension are being granted the 12 months that Maxwell's argument rests on. This is Maxwell's red herring and makes you wonder just what her agenda is. Mayoral candidacy or something? I'm not in the know on these things, but it is disgraceful that she can be so seemingly cavalier in her comments when the obvious is growing by the day on our streets and the worst has yet really to come. Are people emotionally prepared for what we are soon going to see on our streets: a massive uptick of sick, starving, and/or deranged homeless people? I certainly hope it doesn't happen, but all signs are leading in one direction.
Posted by Alan Collins | October 8, 2009 12:24 PM