At their May 12 meeting, the San Diego Housing Commission unanimously agreed to apply for state funds to help purchase a vacant apartment building at 2147 Abbott Street in Ocean Beach and the Ramada Inn in the Midway District to provide permanent housing for homeless people.
The Commissioners voted to apply for up to $5 million to help purchase the apartment building which would create 13 units. The vote was an agreement to submit a joint application for $5 million in Project Homekey money with the nonprofit Wakeland Housing and Development Corp.
Vacant since January 2022, the property — if bought — would provide 13 units for people who had experienced chronic homelessness and whose income is up to 30 percent of the area median income, which is $27,350 a year for a one-person household.
The Abbott Street property has a history with the Housing Commission, as U-T reporter Gary Warth found. The Housing Commission, he reported:
… in 1997 restricted 14 units to be affordable for households with an income at or below 80 percent of the city’s area median income. It later allowed 10 units to be transitional housing for survivors of domestic violence.
The financing would be as follows, Warth reported:
The Housing Commission would provide a $1.5 million loan and 13 federal project-based housing vouchers for residents of the apartment, and Wakeland would raise money for its purchase and rehabilitation. The county also would provide a $1.5 million loan.
The acquisition cost is $4.5 million, or $347,000 a unit, but rehabilitation expenses would increase the cost to $6.8 million, bringing the per-unit cost to $525,000
Also the Commission voted to apply for $18 million to help purchase the Ramada Inn at 3737-3747 Midway Drive, which would create 62 affordable units.
The purpose and sale agreement of the Ramada Inn was approved last year. Since then, the Commission has performed “due-diligence, including review of preliminary title reports, appraisal, peer appraisal, a market study, construction cost assumptions, physical inspections and other steps,” Warth reported.
According to the report to the board in July 2022, the estimated acquisition cost of the two-story property would be $11.6 million, or about $182,000 a unit.
Unlike the extended stay hotels the Housing Commission also is pursuing, the Ramada Inn rooms do not include kitchenettes, which would make them more like homes. Adding kitchenettes and other upgrades would increase the cost to $29.5 million, with the per-room cost rising to $469,000.
{ 38 comments… read them below or add one }
What the ever flipping F***! This is going to attract even more homeless people to OB thinking they are going to get free housing. I’m really starting to regret moving here…
Bye Felicia!!
Says Karen
This is movement in the right direction. Homelessness is a city-county-state-national emergency.
Taxes/state funds would obviously be better spent on more affordable larger properties away from the coast.
The idea of the City/County purchasing relatively more expensive coastal property in an effort to help the homeless issue is simply a ridiculous waste of funds.
Really people? This expenditure of state funds is the opposite direction. Absurd!
I agree with that. This makes no sense, buying beach property at the very height of the market? Ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous?
Because it is not a good use of the available money.
Thank you Geoff.
Straight to the point. I didn’t think further explanation was necessary.
Why not look to lower-cost areas of San Diego for transitional housing instead of high-cost enclaves? $500,000/unit is a pretty hefty price tag.
They did. It’s called the Midway District.
Hey Chris, where’s the popcorn? And where is Lyle?
Good to hear from you bodysurfer bob! Where have you been? It’s been a long time since you’ve commented here.
Spend that money on mental health instead, revamp the criminal code, provide showers and toilets. This band aid is way too expensive and this will be like a drop in the bucket. This does nothing to root out the foundational issues of homelessness and while it will help a tiny fraction of the SD homeless, it will do nothing for the vast majority. Wealth inequity, the war on drugs and mental illness, over policing, the tax code, a living wage, food for all. Any of these would have a better chance at changing the paradigm. This does nothing to move the needle.
Eric I would say for the people who are currently experiencing homelessness and will soon have a home because of this (thus ending that homeless experience) it does, in fact, move the needle. Homelessness is solved one person at a time. This is great news and I’m glad our community is going to house people who need the help.
I disagree, this can’t be solved one at a time. The numbers at this pace are getting exponentially worse. We need to go big with a different strategy. I know we’ve got to do something, but this is a failed solution.
“Failed solution”? Providing homes for the chronically unhoused? Yikes. Eric, you do make some good points — Spend money on mental health, revamp the criminal code, provide showers and toilets …Wealth inequity, the war on drugs and mental illness, over policing, the tax code, a living wage, food for all. But what are the foundational issues?
Thanks for asking Bob. And, just for my cred. I spent years working with the homeless through the Salvation Army and Volunteers of America feeding hundreds a night in the parking lot of the naval hospital in Balboa Park and in cold weather over night shelters in El Cajon. I’m a teacher of 25 years in SDUSD, and an OB business owner for 25 years. The failed solution of buying hotels and apartment buildings is not reducing homelessness. We can’t do this fast enough to hold back the rising tide. The foundational issues are the war on drugs, the lack of mental health financial investments, the small amounts of public assistance for veterans and single moms, the amount of money spent on the military budget instead of on humans in our cities. I’m all for spending lots of money on this solution. I feel like this solution is the worse one possible and is one of the reasons people are against helping. This does not address the foundational issues and homelessness will continue to increase with this strategy. We need a new strategy. This band aid does net to nothing to slow the increasing numbers on our streets. Spend it on counselors and outreach and cops without guns. Anything but this.
Great perspective, Eric, except these: ” The failed solution of buying hotels and apartment buildings is not reducing homelessness,” plus “counselors and outreach and cops without guns” don’t provide housing, and that’s what is needed. But the other issues you mention are right on: ” The foundational issues are the war on drugs, the lack of mental health financial investments, the small amounts of public assistance for veterans and single moms, the amount of money spent on the military budget instead of on humans in our cities.” Yet, they aren’t enough.
Thank you 2thePoint
RE: 2147 Abbott Street… there is a transit center @ 4.2 miles away. So there’s that.
This is insanity. I support aiding homeless and finding housing solutions for them, but why wouldn’t the city go further east into more affordable areas to buy units? Coastal properties carry a very high price tag, $550k per unit?! The majority of the residents in OB can’t afford to purchase an apartment for that much. This is just going to attract more homeless people to the area, looking for free housing.
“This is just going to attract more homeless people to the area, looking for free housing.” How?
John (whatever your true name is)
— first of all, the majority of residents in OB are renters – 70%. And how do you know what OBceans can afford?
Second, what does an 1 bedroom apartment in OB go for? In April a 1 bedroom, 1 bath on West Pt Loma sold for $485K. Is that that far off?
Third, you want government to buy properties “further east” for homeless, but right now east county cities like El Cajon and Santee are not accepting homeless solutions.
It is a complex problem.
This seems an exorbitant amount. Is the city nor considering economy of scale? 500,000 times the numbers of people on the street is how much? And more will come seeing the city roll out an ocean welcome mat. What is the logic of this?
R.I.P. Ocean Beach
More dumping of the homeless into the 92110 zip code, which is already overburdened by social service providers which attract even more homeless.
It’s bad enough trying to make the run from your car into the Ralph’s on Sports Arena without running into a drug addled transient, now the same will happen if you shop at the Midway Vons.
What happened to the idea of spreading transitional housing fairly among all the council districts???
This OB apartment complex has been used since 1997 as a transitional facility, and you all have missed it the entire time.
“… in 1997 restricted 14 units to be affordable for households with an income at or below 80 percent of the city’s area median income. It later allowed 10 units to be transitional housing for survivors of domestic violence.”
I’m just so sad to read these comments from people who say we shouldn’t do this. Isn’t OB a welcoming community? We’re better than this and we should be proud to be a part of the solution for those folks who will now have a roof over their head. It’s pretty icky to say that they shouldn’t have access to our community just because they’re currently experiencing homelessness, that they should just be somewhere farther from the coast.
These aren’t the OB values I know.
Advocating on behalf of the unhoused in OB is a serious challenge. For some reason, the mantle of tolerance within the village evaporates as soon as the subject is revealed. This complex has been used since 1997 (26 years) for the near homeless and there hasn’t been a squawk.
The Rag and friends tried to counter the horrendous negativity revealed in OB back in 2009 when the Black sold the stupid, insulting decal about feeding the homeless. We even held a picket line of sorts in front of the Black and called for a boycott. An unsympathetic crowd gathered (we should never announced when we would be there), screamed at us, threatened us, and we nearly came to blows after a few individuals caused one of our staff to be so upset that she vowed not to like OB again.
So, yeah, OB was better than that, we claimed. Our efforts did end up on a positive note as we generated a series of community town meetings about the homeless. Number one complaint then (and now) was the lack of public restrooms for unhoused folks.
Yes, advocating for the unhoused in laid-back, mellow, hippie town OB is a serious challenge.
There is a lack of public restrooms for housed folks as well.
You are missing the point of what some of us are saying. The money available to help these people could be much better spent buying real estate in areas that is not in the highest segment of the market, which the beach areas are. It has nothing to do with not being welcoming.
I couldn’t agree more with Geoff on this part. For example, if someone needed a car would it make more sense to get them a $100,000 BMW or a $20,000 Chevy Spark? You could help a lot more people with the Spark.
Considering what the current market is, there’s a good chance very few properties make sense for this kind of aquisition across the city of San Diego. Isn’t it better to buy something now and get people into housing regardless of where it is rather than waiting for some potential deal down the road, in a different neighborhood? This is an emergency situation and we should be happy that steps are being taken to end the suffering of folks who have no home (but have an income!). Frank I appreciate your comments, I wish more people in OB felt like you did instead of the posters here complaining – both openly and behind cost concerns – that our community will now be home to some folks who were formerly experiencing homelessness.
Also Geoff don’t you keep saying we need more affordable housing? Isn’t that your whole thing? Well this is EXACTLY the kind of project you should be supportive of but instead you’re against it. It kind of feels like you simply don’t want this in OB.
I’ve already pretty clearly stated my opinion, use the available money as sensibly as possible, paying the cost of coastal real estate is not and never would be the most sensible choice. Use the money to make the best use of public properties we already have that can be converted to housing or where housing can be built quickly. The cost of land right now is at an all time high, buying it is not a good use of the funds.
I agree with Geoff. I think the money could be better spent on the unhoused than on these places at these prices. My point above is that these band aid approaches of buying places isn’t even keeping up with the increase in the unhoused population. So you can keep throwing money at the problem like this and fall further behind, or you can try something completely different. The status quo solution behind these purchases is so out of touch with reality. Disrupt the paradigm!
Here’s something very interesting from KUSI:
“The building, formerly a home for domestic violence victims called “Becky’s House”, is required in its deed to only be used for shelter, affordable housing, or victim advocacy purposes.”
https://www.kusi.com/city-housing-authority-vote-to-buy-apt-building-in-ocean-beach-for-homeless/
Good point Frank. I believe the property is owned by the Ocean Beach Community Development Corporation. Hopefully, they can do good things with the money for Ocean Beach. I too am always saddened by the negative comments against the homeless. It’s a complicated issue but we need to get people off the streets. Every community should do their fair share. If you want to learn more and help the cause please come tomorrow and show support. UNHOUSED RESIDENTS & SUPPORTERS TO PROTEST PROPOSED CAMPING BAN
DATE: Tuesday, May 23, 2023,
TIME: 12:30pm Press Conference,
1pm March
WHERE: San Diego Civic Concourse, 202 C St
More info: https://www.facebook.com/SDHEMA2017