City Council Workshops were fascinating. There were two topics:
- Homeless Action Plan
- Housing Action Plan
First, the Homeless Action Plan.
San Marcos hired a guy named Robert Marbut for five months, to write a report about what we should do to help homeless people in San Marcos. He gave the presentation on Tuesday.
First off, Max Baker is very wary of him. And rightly so: the Wikipedia entry on Marbut is pretty awful:
According to The Huffington Post, Marbut’s advice to most communities was to limit food handouts and build a large shelter that stays open all day and doesn’t turn anyone away. He called his approach “The Velvet Hammer”; since then he has said he prefers the phrase “The Velvet Gavel”.[11]
Marbut’s methods were criticized by housing activists who preferred a policy widely adopted since the 1990s called “Housing First,” which finds apartments and houses instead of shelters for homeless people.[11][12][13] Some activists called Marbut’s approach outdated, punitive and patronizing to homeless people, and more effective at hiding them from downtowns than at solving homelessness.[13][2][10]
In response, Marbut said, “I believe in Housing Fourth” — awarding permanent housing after residents have shown their personal lives are in order.[11] “I often say, ‘Having a home is not the problem for the homeless,'” Marbut told the magazine Next City. “It’s maintaining a financial stability that allows you to maintain your homestead.”[14]
In Pinellas County, Florida, Marbut consulted on a 470-bed shelter called Safe Harbor, which opened in 2011 in a former jail building next to the current jail outside of St. Petersburg. It was run by the sheriff’s department and included a “penalty box” in a fenced-in area of the parking lot where residents who broke rules would sleep. Most residents stayed for less than a month, according to sheriff’s department data, and few were known to have found permanent housing afterward. Between 2011 and 2013, 7 percent of those leaving the shelter found permanent housing, 3 percent went to another shelter or a friend or relative, and 67 percent headed for an “unknown” destination.[11][12]
His presentation on San Marcos was mixed. Parts of it were really good! For example, he stated several times that criminalizing homelessness does not work. Arresting homeless people does not work. He was clear and emphatic on this point.
But parts of it were total garbage. For example, he believes that “handouts promote homelessness”. He can fuck right off with that bullshit. You know who gets a lot of handouts? Wealthy people! They get the mortgage interest deduction for big houses and second homes, the estate tax, the social security earnings limit, and many, many more. They get legacy admit assistance for college. Robert Marbut himself gets handouts, and yet he is not homeless! It’s a Christmas miracle.
He criticized “housing first” policies, but his evidence against them was dishonest. He implied that “Housing First” policies have been tried in San Francisco, LA, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, and Austin, and consequently, homelessness has skyrocketed in all of them. It’s a bad-faith argument, and he should know better. Their homeless populations haven’t skyrocketed because of a housing first policy; they’ve skyrocketed due to the wildly rising rental costs and the shrinking supply of affordable housing. The fact that he gave an intellectually dishonest characterization of the other side makes me suspicious of a lot of what he says.
His argument goes: If you don’t treat the addiction, domestic violence, mental illness, and so on, then the homeless will be right back on the street in six months. (I don’t think that’s how Housing First policies work? I don’t really know.)
But his counter-proposal isn’t entirely bad, either. He says, “Treat your way out.” Give people shelter while connecting them with help for addiction, domestic violence, mental illness, and so on. I’m not disputing the need for services.
I’m just very worried about the part where you withhold housing in the meantime. How long does it take people to “earn” a key to an apartment or some sort of permanent housing? And what do you do with someone who will never overcome their addiction or mental illness? Is your plan that they live their life in a shelter forever?
Anyway, here’s his five major points:
- “Stop the Growth”
Marbut wants us to only help locals. “The worst thing you can do is convert out-of-towners to in-towners!” he quips. He claims we get lots of homeless traffic from the I-35 corridor, and we can’t give handouts to everyone.- This is fine if you’re talking about homeless people from Austin. It is absolutely true that San Marcos cannot afford to take care of an Austin-sized population.
- This is cruel and inhumane if you’re talking about refugees from Central America.
What exactly does this mean? How would it be implemented?
He is clear about a few details that sound reasonable:
- Only ship someone to their hometown in conjunction with a coordinated care team. (But will we actually do this?)
- Do not send domestic violence victims home under any circumstances.
I can believe that – sometimes – connecting people with their family can be the path to stability. But it just depends on how humanely it’s implemented.
- “Improve the Overall System Through Increased Effectiveness and Efficiencies”
It sounds like he wants a team of people to go break up homeless camps, and connect them to resources.
Again, he stresses that arresting homeless people (for anything short of violent felonies) does not work. And it sounds like we already have a HOTeam that goes out and does this sort of thing, and it includes officers, and they supposedly don’t arrest people for being homeless.
It’s hard to sell me on the idea that cops should go and break up homeless camps. You need to do some work to convince me that they won’t just destroy homeless people’s possessions and make them scatter and start all over.
- Expand Capacity
There’s a court case, Martin vs. Boise, where six homeless people were kicked out when a shelter closed, and then promptly arrested. The courts ruled against the city of Boise: you can’t arrest people for being homeless unless there are enough beds for them.
Currently we are not Boise-compliant. We need more shelter space. We should partner with Southside and the Salvation Army. (Updated to clarify: Those are Marbut’s recommendations. Salvation Army has a problematic past.)
Once we’re Boise-compliant, he wants us to have “zero-tolerance of encampments.” What is he picturing, besides arrests? He already said not to arrest non-violent homeless people. How is he imagining forcing people into compliance? (Again, my mind goes directly to things like making homeless people give up their pets and come with you, or else destroying their possessions and making them scatter and start over.)
We should also be partnering with some of the SMCISD and Hays ISD employees who focus on homeless families. We also need a LOT more affordable housing. Both of those sound good.
- In the future, build a right-sized Homelessness Assistance Center.
So that’s the spiel. I’m very skeptical of parts of it, but other parts of it are okay, if they’re implemented well.
Mostly City Council has very little to say, aside from some bland platitudes.
Alyssa Garza asks a key question: where did he get his data on San Marcos homelessness? he says he collected it himself, by going out on multiple occasions and talking to people. He’s implicitly claiming that he collected data using sound statistical sampling methods, and didn’t just wing it.
This article is extremely critical of his data claims. It sounds like he does, in fact, just make shit up. (In fact, Marbut claimed on Tuesday that he reduced homelessness in San Antonio by 80% in the 2010s. The linked article points out that homelessness actually grew in San Antonio during that time.)
From here, staff will bring forth a possible plan for City Council to adopt, to help homeless people in a coordinated, effective way.
Housing Action Plan
In 2018-2019, we carried out a big housing action plan. Then City Council just… didn’t approve it. They just shrugged it away. It’s really insane. It’s just been collecting dust here, ever since.
Now we’re waking up the slumbering giant, and bringing it around again! The numbers are now out of date. City staff will update the numbers, and get the ball rolling. (Incidentally, these are the numbers I’m always crabbing about not having, whenever we’re considering new zoning! I’m very pleased right now.)
It did go to P&Z last time, and P&Z passed a number of amendments. Most of these are focused on wealthy, secure people. Those redlines are still in effect. We shall see.
The San Marxist 