Skip to comments.San Jose homeless would get hotel and motel rooms under city plan
Posted on 02/22/2014 2:01:54 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
Facing a growing homeless population, San Jose is ready to try a new strategy to get people off the streets: pay to put some of them up in local hotels and motels, potentially for years.
...housing prices continue to climb and landlords become pickier about renters...100 homeless people roaming San Jose streets have publicly funded vouchers for subsidized housing but cannot find a place that will accept them.
"It's just a tough place to live because of how expensive it is," said Leslye Corsiglia, the city's housing director, who called it an opportunity for homeless people "to get themselves settled and together so they can move into other housing."
While the exact number of people who would receive rooms is dependent on available funding and willing motel and hotel owners, only a fraction of the city's 4,770 homeless would be helped. Officials haven't decided whether the chronically or the newly homeless would get priority.
The city figures it would cost $1 million a year to house 60 people, including initial costs to spruce up the rooms. San Jose has $3 million to spend on homeless services this year, while Santa Clara County, which would help fund the program, has more than $8 million available.
For some down-on-their-luck motel owners, the proposal would result in welcome business. They would lease as much as 49 percent of their rooms to a yet-to-be-determined nonprofit that would rent the rooms to homeless people who would pay using federal Section 8 housing vouchers or city "coupons."
"I love this idea, I have no objection to that at all," said Sanjay Patel, who owns the 40-room City Center Motel on the southern edge of downtown and has been struggling to find customers. "I'd rather have full than empty."
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
New York will do you one better:
Cuomo asks state to fund college for prison inmates
A perfect arrangement should you decide to get out of “Job Lock”!
Do you suppose the ones who aren’t put up in the San Jose motels might move over to Santa Clara?
If they are going to do this, can they insist the homeless work for the city doing some type of work in exchange for shelter? There must be a million productive things for them to do rather than lay around in free housing.
Do You Know The Way to Way To San Jose?
Once you have people living in your hotel, say goodbye to any regular guests. Soon they will be 100% Section 8.
AFSCME would never let it happen.
I have a home in San Jose that I use only a few weeks each year. I was approached by a religious non-profit to rent it on a long-term basis at the market rate.
The non-profit organization would be the lessee, but they could not say who or how many would be occupying the property - just that they would take responsibility. It was an attractive option on paper, but I now I know why they approached me.
Likely would have been uninhabitable at the end of the lease.
The problem with most of the homeless is not that they’re homeless, it’s drug abuse, alcoholism and mental illness. Oh, joy, the man in room 10 next door is screaming at God. The woman in 12 on the other side offers a blow job for a drink. Oh, yeah, that’ll be wonderful for the motel’s other business. And, they tend to pee in just about any place. They’ll be as bad as Section 8 renters. They seem to damage things just because they can. Being a landlord I know several others in the business and NONE of them will take Section 8 or any other welfare money. I had one renter on welfare and I had to totally refurbish the unit after just six months.
So, what to do with the homeless? How about a free buss ticket to California?
and they likely will not be allowed to evict them
This could be my new retirement housing.
It would be cheaper to buy them bus tickets to San Francisco or Santa Monica.
so if it is so dam&ed expensive to live there, why should taxpayers have to pay to support “homeless” people there?
provide whatever social welfare and benefits programs (including free rent give=aways) in regions which cost less... thus saving the taxpayers oodles of money
while still serving the “needs” of all
this is not an argument to retain all the welfare, dole, and give-away programs, only saying here that these programs can be run a whole lot more efficiently
hotel rooms in SillyCon valley are usually VERY expensive, FYI
paying for thousands of “homeless” people to “live maybe for years” in those hotel rooms is going to cost the taxpayers a royal fortune
almost as much as O’s last Hawaiian golf vacation?
The debate in Irving TX, supposedly a conservative suburb of Dallas, was about spending $500K to buy a house for 10 “homeless high school students” (18 year olds I guess). It would have been phase 1 of a lot.
When did people decide that others are owed a house?
I can only speak for myself, I want govt (preferably state and local, not feds) to provide a good life for those people who GENUINELY have serious disabilities
everyone else, I figure, can and should take care of themselves most of the time
Incidentally, it doesn’t take any genius to figure out what a dozen teenagers are going to be doing together in a nice big house all by themselves if the govt pays all their bills
let them go get McD jobs, or any little jobs... we all started out this way when we were young... they can do it too (they can mow lawns or wash cars too)...good for them and relieves the taxpayers from an unjustified expense
just my opinions, nobody has to agree and maybe nobody does
And these would be all boys, a house for the girls would be another half million...
the social workers can then instruct the boys in the Joys of HomoSex
so they can make good recruits for the Transformed new military
see? its all consistent, everything is being thought out for the next generation of homosheep
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.