How long can homeless people stay in taxpayer-funded housing?

If you’re like me, you’ve wondered how long homeless people are going to be allowed to stay in those tiny home villages, or in the Project Roomkey and Project Homekey places like the Lake Merritt Inn or the Radisson Hotel, out near the airport.

The City has made much of these amenities, which are paid for by Federal and State dollars and to some extent by philanthropic donations. But even for a news junkie like me, I’ve been hard pressed to uncover any information about limits on the length of a resident’s stay.

I did some Googling and there’s not much out there. Oaklandside reported late last year about some tiny homes in East Oakland. “The new shelters will let residents remain living in their tiny homes as long as they need to,” the online publication said. I emailed Nikki Bas, who represents the district, and asked her, but she didn’t respond—even though Bas had earlier called the shelters “interim homeless solutions.” So it’s puzzling to me how an “interim” solution can be the same as “as long as they need to.”

As for Project Roomkey (developed as emergency shelter for those at high risk of COVID) and its twin, Project Homekey (for homeless people in general), it’s also not clear how long beneficiaries can stay. The California Department of Housing and Community Development defines such shelter as “interim housing,” but I’ve not been able to find a definition of “interim.” In Los Angeles,  the county’s website says “Homekey is an innovative partnership between Los Angeles County and the State of California to purchase and rehabilitate hotels and motels, and convert them into permanent, long-term housing for people experiencing homelessness.”

What does that mean? The L.A. website explains that “within approximately two years these [Homekey] sites will be converted into permanent supportive housing…”. Does that mean that occupants can stay for two years before the hotel or motel room is converted? What happens then? Will the county charge rent for this “permanent supportive housing”? What if the occupant can’t come up with the rent money?

What I’m saying is that I’m a little resentful that this information isn’t clear and transparent. After all, almost every dollar that goes for a tiny home or a Roomkey/Homekey apartment comes out of the pockets of tax payers. We have the right to know what we’re paying for. I’m also concerned that, in our efforts to be compassionate and helpful, we may be creating a new, permanent underclass of welfare recipients: people who can live for free, on the public dole, for “as long as they need to.” Because, frankly, that sounds like “forever.”

Steve Heimoff