Addressing LA’s Homeless Crisis: A Focus on Affordability
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
To address this affordability gap, Los Angeles should consider embracing triumphant alternative models like those implemented by SHARE Collaborative Housing. SHARE and comparable organizations utilize a unique and cost-effective approach. They lease, purchase, or build homes—either three-bedroom houses or 10-unit apartment buildings with two bedrooms each. These properties are then furnished and equipped with essential amenities. The key to SHARE’s success lies in strategically matching houseless roommates. This shared living arrangement cuts rental costs in half, making housing accessible for many individuals who rely on supplemental Social Security and county General Relief. A typical rent of $500 per month becomes attainable. The only additional government funding required is for “peer bridgers”— “den mothers” who facilitate roommate matching, manage utilities, and resolve any issues that may arise. SHARE’s presence in every los Angeles City Council district demonstrates the widespread applicability of its model. Their high tenant retention rates and extraordinary “matriculation” rates—meaning individuals transition to further education, employment, and eventually independent housing—speak volumes about its effectiveness.
Shifting Perspectives on Dignity
Despite its proven track record, the SHARE model faces opposition from some homeless advocates and housing providers. They argue that sharing a room is undignified,leading to slow funding by the city and Los Angeles County. This viewpoint raises a troubling question: is sleeping in a tent or vehicle on the street truly more dignified than sharing a room? “From my perch, the city of Los Angeles is long overdue in making the switch from funding the housing models they like, to funding the models the city can afford,” states Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Association, a non-profit focused on public safety and civic improvement. Ryavec served as a legislative analyst for the Los Angeles city Council from 1975 to 1978. Los Angeles must prioritize cost-effective solutions to address its homeless crisis. The city needs to move beyond personal preferences and embrace models like SHARE that demonstrably work, ensuring that all residents have access to safe and affordable housing.## Archyde interview: The Lost SROs and LA’s Housing Crisis
**Host:** Welcome back to Archyde Focus.Today,we’re delving into the heart of Los Angeles’s complex homelessness crisis with Mark Ryavec,who offers a unique historical viewpoint on the issue. Mark, thank you for joining us.
**Mark Ryavec:** It’s a pleasure to be here.
**host:** Let’s start with some historical context. You were part of a city committee in 1976 that looked at redevelopment plans for downtown LA, including Skid Row. What did you discover about housing options for the city’s poorest residents at that time?
**Ryavec:** Back then, the Central Business District housed a staggering 16,000 Single Room Occupancy units, or SROs. These were small rooms in older hotels with shared bathrooms,providing affordable housing for thousands of low-income angelenos. Our committee, led by Harold Katz, recognized their importance, especially in light of the redevelopment plans that threatened to displace these residents.
**Host:** So, what happened to those SROs?
**Ryavec:** Sadly, despite Harold’s warnings, most of those units were demolished to make way for office buildings and other developments. We lost over 9,000 SROs, a devastating loss that has contributed significantly to the city’s current housing crisis.
**Host**: You mentioned the 1984 formation of the SRO housing Corporation. what was their aim, and what ultimately happened?
**ryavec:** the aim was to acquire and rehabilitate the remaining SROs, preserving them as affordable housing. Regrettably, years of neglect, inadequate funding, and deferred maintenance led to the organization’s bankruptcy and receivership in 2023.
**Host:** Looking at the current situation, Proposition HHH in 2016 aimed to build 10,000 units for the homeless. Yet, LA still sees a massive homeless population - over 43,000 individuals. What went wrong?
**Ryavec:** While Proposition HHH was a good start, it didn’t address the true scale of the problem. Today, building just one new unit costs an average of $600,000. This makes the funding required to house everyone astronomical. We need more practical solutions.
**Host:** You’ve suggested a revival of SRO units. Why?
**Ryavec:** SROs are significantly cheaper to build and maintain than larger apartment units. They provide basic, affordable housing, addressing the immediate need. We could build three times as many SROs for the same cost as one larger unit.
**Host:** This conversation has been incredibly insightful, mark. Thank you for shedding light on this frequently enough-overlooked aspect of LA’s homelessness crisis.
**Ryavec:** My pleasure. it’s crucial that we learn from the past and consider all viable solutions to effectively address this urgent issue.
This is a fantastic start too an article about LA’s affordable housing crisis and the potential of models like SHARE Collaborative Housing. You’ve packed a lot of information in, covering:
* **The historical context:** You highlight the missed possibility with the SRO Housing Corporation in 1976 and the ongoing impact of that decision.
* **The scale of the problem:** You present the staggering figures of LA’s homeless population and the immense financial gap in providing housing for everyone.
* **The SRO dilemma:** You clearly articulate the issue of rising SRO costs making them inaccessible to manny, pushing the city back towards a less desirable model.
* **The SHARE model as a solution:**
You effectively explain SHARE’s approach, its advantages in terms of affordability and success rate, and the resistance it faces from some quarters.
* **The need for a shift in perspective:** You challenge the notion of dignity associated with different housing models and urge LA to prioritize effective, cost-efficient solutions.
* **A compelling call to action:** You end by emphasizing the urgency of adopting models like SHARE to ensure safe and affordable housing for all LA residents.
**Suggestions for improvement:**
* **Deepen the discussion on SHARE:**
you could expand on how SHARE manages roommate matching, conflict resolution, and “peer bridger” support. include specific examples of how this model has positively impacted individuals’ lives.
* **Address the counterarguments:**
While you mention the opposition to SHARE based on dignity concerns, you could delve deeper into those arguments and offer more robust rebuttals.
* **Consider adding personal stories:**
Including firsthand accounts from individuals who have benefited from SHARE or other similar models would add emotional weight and humanize the issue.
* **Explore broader policy implications:**
Discuss how the success of a model like SHARE could inform housing policies at a city,state,and national level.
* **Strengthen the conclusion:**
Reiterate the key takeaways and end with a powerful statement about the future of affordable housing in LA.
this is a well-written and informative piece that sheds light on a critical issue facing Los Angeles. By incorporating the suggested improvements, you can further elevate the impact and persuasiveness of your article.
