Where will the homeless go?

The Marina Village Inn is out.

The Bottle Parcel is in.

And so are two of the Big Whites.

That’s our shorthand summary of the plan currently being proposed by City staff for providing housing for the homeless in Alameda.  But it comes with a caveat:  Council still gets the last word.

We’ll begin with the announcement earlier this year that the City of Alameda would be getting $28.68 million in “American Rescue Plan Act” funds from the federal government in two tranches, the first of which ($14.34 million) the City received in June.

At the July 20 Council meeting, staff recommended that the money be spread among a variety of projects, including a “transitional” supportive housing program that would cost $2 million to set up and $600,000 per year to operate.  At the same time, staff recommended against using the ARPA funds to buy a hotel and convert it into “permanent” supportive housing.

The latter idea had been floated by Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft at the May 20 Council meeting.  The specific property she had in mind was the Marina Village Inn, a 51‑room hotel that had been used for temporary housing for women and children from the Midway Shelter as part of “Project Roomkey” (which ended on September 30).  MVI offered a “wonderful opportunity” for making housing available to homeless families, the Mayor told her colleagues.

In its staff report for the July 20 meeting, staff cited three reasons for its reluctance to endorse the MVI idea:  (1) the hotel acquisition would require spending approximately $20 million (more than two thirds of the City’s total ARPA allocation); (2) operating the hotel would cost at least $1.5 million annually, “which may be more significant as facility maintenance and replacement costs are realized over time”; and (3) the alternative of running a transitional housing program would “allow[] for the City to take on a lower ongoing cost as we continue to address homelessness in the community.”

At the July 20 meeting, Council sided with the Mayor.  Four members (all but Councilwoman Trish Spencer) agreed that providing housing for the homeless should be the top priority for the ARPA funds – and that the plans should include the Marina Village Inn.  Their arguments ranged from the pragmatic (MVI was ideally located near jobs, transit, and stores, said Councilman Tony Daysog) to the profound (“When we talk about housing, we really need to lead with the value of empathy,” said Vice Mayor Malia Vella.)

Accordingly, Council authorized City Manager Eric Levitt to begin negotiations for purchase of the Inn.  In addition, staff issued a Request for Proposals that would enable the City to get a “Project Homekey” grant that would pay for converting the property into housing for the homeless.  (Firms were also invited to submit proposals for homeless housing projects at other locations.)

At this point the plan hit a snag.

The first hint we got that something was amiss was when Councilman John Knox White stated at the September 7 Council meeting that he was “definitely losing interest in the Marina Village Inn.”  (As everyone knows, Mr. Knox White’s blessing is required to legitimize any action proposed to be taken by Council.)  But Mr. Knox White’s waning ardor wasn’t the only problem.

Mr. Levitt proved to be uncharacteristically coy in response to our inquiry about why the negotiations hadn’t resulted in a deal.  “Initial discussions and other work occurred regarding the property” was all he would tell us when we asked whether any demands and offers had been exchanged between the parties.

Ms. Ashcraft was more forthcoming.  After an inspection, she told us, the County had determined that significant remedial work would need to be done to qualify the Inn for Project Homekey funding.  (In addition, the hotel swimming pool seemed superfluous to the County.)  But the hotel owner was demanding a price that did not take account of these flaws.

At the same time, no non‑profit organization responded to the RFP with a proposal to run a permanent supportive housing project at MVI.  (Neither the Mayor nor the City Manager had any explanation for this lack of response.)

In any event, the MVI acquisition and renovation no longer was on the list of homeless housing projects presented to Council on November 2.  Not that it was dismissed entirely:  a hotel conversion “could materialize over a slightly longer time horizon,” the staff report said, and the City was “still considering options of a hotel model,” one of which was MVI, Mr. Levitt told us.

But for now, at least, the ARPA funds once earmarked for the MVI project can be used for other purposes.

One of those purposes is developing the so-called “Bottle Parcel” for housing for the homeless.

This parcel consists of a, well, bottle-shaped lot owned by the City at 2350 5th Street, next to the track at the College of Alameda and across the street from Bayport.  Staff first broached the idea of using the property for transitional or permanent housing in its July 20 staff report.  After a majority of Council reacted favorably, staff included a “ground-up build” of the parcel in its September 7 ARPA spending plan.

Originally, it appears that the Bottle Parcel was intended to be an alternative to the Marina Village Inn as a site for permanent supportive housing.  And when staff got the responses to its RFP, one group, consisting of Danco Construction as builder and Operation Dignity as service provider, proposed to develop it for that purpose.  According to the November 2 staff report, their project would house 39 people and target single adults.

But staff also received a proposal to use the Bottle Parcel for transitional supportive housing.  This proposal, with a non‑profit called DignityMoves as project developer and another non‑profit called Five Keys as service provider, would house 30 to 60 people and target adults, including “transitional-age youth,” seniors, and couples.

The staff report for the November 2 meeting stated that staff was “undertaking due diligence and deeper analysis” of both proposals, but it expressed a preference for the DignityMoves/Five Keys plan because “no other transitional housing for our unhoused community members now exists in the city.”

And, sure enough, staff will return to Council on November 16 seeking authority (1) to apply for a Project Homekey grant of up to $25 million to develop an “interim homeless housing project” on the Bottle Parcel, and (2) to contract with DignityMoves and Five Keys to oversee construction and operate the project.  In addition, staff is seeking approval for allocating $4,640,000 in ARPA funds and $1,200,000 from the General Fund to cover operating expenses for five years.  (According to the staff report, committing such “gap funding” is a requirement for a Project Homekey grant.)

If the City gets the grant, the funds would be used to construct a “prefabricated modular development” that could house up to 61 individuals and couples in 46 units that include bathrooms.  In addition, the project would offer on‑site laundry, staff offices, common areas for the community, and space for “pet relief.”

Here’s the “conceptual site layout”:

According to the staff report, once the project is up and running, residents “would receive case management and support in the following areas: obtaining permanent housing, addiction, mental health and . . . medical . . . care, public benefits, education and skill building and . . . referrals to employment services.”   They also would be offered “group activities” that “may include topics such as art, storytelling, life skills, financial literacy/household budgeting, tenants’ rights and responsibilities, nutrition and/or Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous.”

Finally, the Big Whites – the 18 single-family homes formerly occupied by naval officers at the Alameda Naval Air Station.

The July 20 staff report listing possible sites for housing for the homeless mentioned tennis courts and camp grounds at Alameda Point, but it said nothing about the Big Whites.  Once again, the first hint we got that something was up was from a comment by Mr. Knox White, who stated at the September 7 Council meeting that he was “very interested in pursuing” the idea of using the Big Whites for transitional housing.  (Are we the only ones who hang on Mr. Knox White’s every word?)

The idea then found its way into the November 2 staff report, which – without using the term “Big Whites” – disclosed that staff has been “evaluating the possibility of repurposing” three vacant City-owned homes at Alameda Point “to address an immediate emergency homeless housing need.”  Two of those properties were Big Whites containing four-plus bedrooms.  The other was a three-bedroom townhome.

The three sites – 2845 Pearl Harbor Road, 2815 Newport Road, and 2700 Lemoore Road – are shown on this map:

After Council endorsed this idea at the November 2 meeting, staff put together a plan, which it will present for approval at the November 16 Council meeting, (1) to spend $300,000 to remodel the three homes, and (2) to enter into a $2.5 million, two‑year contract with a non-profit organization called Bay Area Community Services to operate an “emergency” housing program for Alameda residents.  (Staff also proposes to apply for a small Homeless Emergency Aid Program grant from the County that would go toward the cost of remodeling.)

According to the staff report, BACS’ services will include one meal a day, food for individual meal preparation, case management and referral services, housing navigation services, staff oversight and “other supportive services.”  Residents will receive “intensive housing search assistance,” including “application assistance, advocacy, identification of roommates for shared housing, exploration of reuniting with family members, outreach to landlords, assistance with securing housing vouchers, job search support, and assistance with public benefits.”  Once placed in housing, they will get up to nine months of “transitional case management” and up to 12 months of “tapering/transitional financial support.”

Mayor Ashcraft told us that BACS proposes to house 32 residents in the Big Whites and townhome – 11 people in each of the two larger homes, and 10 people in the third.  The staff report states that the program “would be open to all adults over 18 and residing in the city,” who will be able to live with their partners and pets (and service animals).  It doesn’t mention children, but the Mayor told us that kids also would be allowed.

Both the remodeling and the supportive services will be paid for with ARPA funds.

As we understand it – and don’t hold us to the lingo – supportive housing for the homeless usually is broken down into three categories:  emergency, transitional, and permanent.  The difference between “emergency” and “transitional” depends on whom you talk to.  (Mayor Ashcraft told us that she was informed the former term referred to housing where homeless people may stay for up to six months and the latter to housing where they may stay for up to two years.)  In any event, the current plan checks all three boxes:  The Big Whites and townhome provide “emergency” housing; the Bottle Parcel supplies “transitional” housing; and if and when the City buys the Marina Village Inn (or another hotel), it will offer “permanent” housing.

And the cost?  Well, it appears that, except for $1.2 million from the General Fund (which won’t be needed till 2027), the federal and state governments will be picking up the tab.  There is, of course, always the possibility that, even though the state is offering a whopping $1.45 billion in the second tranche of Project Homekey funds in the current fiscal year, the City may not get the grants it is applying for.  If so, staff will need to find another source of cash to finance development of the Bottle Parcel.

The remaining ARPA funds would be the logical place to start looking.  We haven’t done an accounting of the commitments made to-date – Mr. Levitt told us he will present an update on ARPA spending in December – but the well is not bottomless.  Moreover, as those who supported staff’s original idea of “spreading the wealth” among various projects have pointed out, every ARPA dollar spent for homeless programs is a dollar that can’t be spent for other “eligible” purposes – such as, to pick Mayor Ashcraft’s favorite example, a Universal Basic Income program for low-income Alameda residents – or former Mayor Spencer’s preeminent priority, eliminating the “digital gap” by expanding broadband service across the island.

For our part, we would be the last to argue that spending money to combat homelessness isn’t a worthwhile, even a noble, endeavor, but we also recognize that there may be other victims of the pandemic who could benefit as well from the assistance the ARPA funds enable the City to provide.  After all, wasn’t redressing the impact of the pandemic on all segments of society the reason for the program in the first place?

Sources:

ARPA: 2021-05-11 staff report re ARPA; 2021-07-20 staff report re ARPA funds; 2021-09-07 staff report re ARPA spending plan

Homeless housing: 2021-07-20 staff report re housing sites; 2021-07-20 staff report re Marina Village Inn; 2021-11-02 staff report re housing alternatives; 2021-11-16 staff report re Bottle Parcel; 2021-11-16 staff report re emergency services