THE TIGHT LINK BETWEEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND HOMELESSNESS

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2024 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
     “THE TIGHT LINK BETWEEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND HOMELESSNESS”

 

 

        One of the quickest and least controversial ways to reduce homelessness has now become clear: Eliminate as much domestic violence as possible.

 

 

        That’s made plain in a new study from researchers at the University of California-San Francisco Medical Center which concluded that intimate partner violence contributes greatly to persons becoming unhoused – and that these victims of violence are far from universally female.

 

 

        The new report from UCSF’s Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative says physical violence during the six months before becoming homeless was a major reason for almost one-tenth of all homelessness in California.

 

 

        And yet, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s order that homeless encampments on state land be shut down forthwith never mentions domestic violence.

 

 

The new study found that 8 percent of the unhoused in the largest ever survey of California’s homeless experienced intimate partner violence, a more formal term for much domestic violence. That included 17 percent – almost one-fifth – of all women living on the streets or in homeless shelters.

 

 

        This makes domestic violence a lesser cause of homelessness than escalating rents or mental illness of various types, but still a major contributor. The finding is based on in-depth interviews with more than 100 homeless persons who experienced domestic violence before leaving their former residences.

 

       

       As might be expected, intimate partner violence does not occur in  a vacuum. Most of those made homeless after such episodes are also poor, with median monthly income about $1,000, often too little for groceries, let alone rent.

 

 

        Of those naming physical violence as a reason for leaving their prior homes, almost half told the UCSF researchers the violence was a large reason for leaving. In short, they would rather chance living in gutters, tents or temporary shelters than stay and get beaten. Fully 40 percent of them said the physical abuse was their main reason for leaving.

 

 

        For these folks, about two-thirds of them women, leaving was a survival strategy; they believed their lives were threatened.

 

 

        Before leaving their last previous “permanent” housing, about 20 percent had government rent subsidies.

 

 

        Other barriers also drive many to the streets and keep them there. These include not knowing about specialized domestic violence programs, child care responsibilities, fears their intimate partner would find them if they got government help and pandemic-related problems including increased time at home with their predators. Male victims of intimate partner violence, many of them gay, indicated reluctance in seeking help to avoid becoming homeless because they feared discrimination and stigma.

 

 

        But simply leaving home often can’t remove the threat of violence, it turns out.

 

 

        “Many who experienced intimate partner violence in the six months prior to homelessness also experienced (it) during homelessness,” says the report, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

 

 

        Because the newly homeless can be tracked down by former housemates with relative ease, the report says, many described to researchers how they change locations frequently and constantly “remain vigilant of their surroundings.”

 

 

        Their situations are especially perilous because fully 81 percent of the surveyed homeless persons fleeing domestic violence spend most nights completely unsheltered, not even in tents.

 

 

        Many with these woes lack money to seek apartment rentals, especially in coastal counties where both rents and housing are higher than inland.

 

 

        That’s why 73 percent of the UCSF sample believe a small monthly housing subsidy could help them a lot. Even more said a lump-sum payment that might cover first and last month’s rent would help even more. Almost all those surveyed (92 percent) said a housing voucher limiting their need to pay most rent would have kept them housed for at least two additional years.

 

 

        Instability while unhoused also contributes to extended homelessness, the research showed, because without easy access to domestic violence services and shelters, intimate partner violence can continue or worsen while people remain homeless.

 

 

        The bottom line: Domestic violence causes and prolongs a healthy share of California’s homelessness. But the state’s healthcare system “does not provide substantial support” for people who become homeless due to violence. 

 

 

        In short, the more Californians can do to lower or prevent domestic violence, the less homelessness citizens will encounter and the better off those already homeless will be.

 

 

-30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It" is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

BIG HOUSING ACTION IMMINENT DESPITE PAST VOTES

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2019, OR THEREAFTER

'
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
      “BIG HOUSING ACTION IMMINENT DESPITE PAST VOTES”

       California voters have often made it clear they don’t much care for efforts by the state to interfere with free markets in housing. Despite some public polls showing support for denser housing and rent controls, these ideas don’t do well at the ballot box, the latest example last year’s resounding defeat of the pro-rent control Proposition 10 by a 59-41 percent margin.

       But state legislators and Gov. Gavin Newsom apparently prefer to heed unofficial surveys over what actual voters have done.

       And so, while the most radical of this year’s housing proposals has been delayed at least until next spring, the strong likelihood is that when proposed laws from the present legislative session reach Newsom’s desk, he will sign into law a large medley of seemingly pro-consumer housing bills.

       No, none individually would have the strong impact of the stalled SB 50, the effort by San Francisco’s Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener to densify housing in most California cities. But what remains would still make major changes.

       Take rent control, an idea that has strong local support in the 12 California cities where it is now law in some form. One bill by Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, Wiener’s fellow San Franciscan, would prohibit rent gouging by limiting what it calls “extreme or unreasonable rent increases.” This one, moving steadily toward passage, would limit rent increases to the level of rises in the local Consumer Price Index, plus 5 percent, with the total annual increase capped at 10 percent regardless of what the CPI might do.

       That measure flies completely in the face of the whopping defeat suffered by Proposition 10, but neither Chiu nor Newsom, if he signs it, expects any political ill effects.

       Another major bill would suspend for years local laws that legislators believe inhibit housing production, covering everything from zoning changes, building standards, fees on low-income housing and local moratoria on new housing. The measure, by Berkeley’s Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner, would set what it calls “reasonable” time periods for processing housing permits. Cities and counties that don’t comply could be sued or fined.

       Another key bill would open vacant state-owned lands to building affordable homes, the definition of affordability varying by locale. “This will free up thousands of acres up and down the state on which affordable housing can be sited,” said its sponsor, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting, another San Franciscan.

       “We need to unlock surplus land for this purpose and the public good,” he added.

       Unlike Wiener’s SB 50, this one most likely would not alter the entire character of whole neighborhoods and even some full cities. Instead, it would make something useful of vacant lots and unused former state buildings. By contrast, SB 50 would mandate high rise housing near all light rail transit stations and along frequently used bus routes, defined as those where buses run four or more times per hour.

       That could turn much of California into a slightly newer replica of San Francisco’s Castro District, where Wiener has lived more than 20 years among its plethora of four- and five-story walkups.

       While all these housing plans come from representatives of San Francisco and Berkeley, along with Santa Monica arguably the most left-leaning places in California, it pays not to view them all through the lens of urban, left-wing politicians trying to impose their world-view on the rest of the state.

       It’s more helpful, rather, to examine each proposal separately without rushing to judgment. Using vacant state-owned land to solve the state’s most visible social problems – homelessness and housing affordability – makes good economic and social justice sense. It would cost far less than building on land that must be purchased.

       But taking away the authority of local governments – both counties and charter cities – to control their own zoning decisions is another matter, one that could have serious consequences for almost every property owner or renter in those places.

       The bottom line: Legislators should carefully pick and choose from among the proposals now before them, taking the ones that have a proven possibility of working and discarding the rest. But it’s almost certain there will be serious change in housing policy, no matter which of the current bills become law.

 
-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

PIOUS-TALKING POLS MAY KILL EX PARTE REFORM

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2016, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
    “PIOUS-TALKING POLS MAY KILL EX PARTE REFORM”

          Strong evidence shows several arms of California government are in urgent need of major ethical fixes, beginning with the Public Utilities Commission, the Energy Commission and the Coastal Commission, to name just three powerful agencies.

          But even the smallest and most obvious reforms are consistently met with vetos, legislative detours and other obfuscation despite the pious rhetoric of powerful politicians from Gov. Jerry Brown down to backbenchers in the Legislature.

          The pattern began last year, when Brown vetoed a batch of proposed changes for the PUC, including creating an inspector general for the almost untouchable agency that oversees electric and natural gas safety and prices. Brown nixed a ban on private contacts between PUC commissioners and executives of the big utility companies they regulate, while often acting like rubber stamps. These are known as “ex parte communications.”

          The drive for a ban on ex parte’s for the PUC followed revelations of a secret deal between a former PUC president (now under criminal investigation) and officials of the Southern California Edison Co. that stuck consumers with the bulk of costs for shutting down the San Onofre Nuclear Power Station. There were also private contacts between PUC commissioners and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on both rates and the consequences of the fatal 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion.

          This year, legislators proposed a similar ban on ex parte communications by the Coastal Commission, which rules on virtually all development along the state’s scenic coastline. This came after several commissioners admitted having secret meetings, emails and phone calls with developers on whose projects they were to vote.

          For months, passage of a ban seemed assured; it easily cleared the state Senate. If passed, the bill by Democratic state Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara would prohibit ex parte communications between commissioners and anyone else with a financial stake in agency business.

          This would be a nice start, many consumers believe, with similar bans also needed for many other state boards and commissions. So far, not one such ban has been accepted by Brown, whose signature is needed to make legislation into law.

          Now the Coastal Commission ex parte ban has now run afoul of an analysis by the state Natural Resources Agency that found the commission would need six new employees at a yearly cost of about $150,000 each. That department – under Brown’s direct authority – also backed the contention by some commissioners that ex parte communications help greatly in their work.

          Two facts are relevant here: One is that the expense ($900,000) for six new employees who would presumably police their bosses is a fraction of the building cost for just one typical new coastal home. It’s a pittance for keeping commissioners honest and fair. The other fact is that wealthy coastal developers can hire lobbyists and other spokesman whose fees are usually beyond the means of conservationists. That’s why most Coastal Commission ex parte communications are one-sided renditions of property owner interests.

          Nevertheless, allegedly because of its financial impact, Jackson’s bill has been sidetracked into the state Assembly’s suspense file, which usually delays votes on proposed laws by about a year. If this bill isn’t resurrected by Thursday evening, it can’t be reintroduced until next year. Democratic Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon of Lawndale, sponsor of last year’s vetoed PUC reforms, refused to say whether he will try to break it loose.

          Meanwhile, there’s no prospect for an ex parte communications ban for any other agency. A package of PUC changes agreed to by Brown and key legislators would require commissioners to reveal quickly the contents of any such contacts. But there are no significant penalties for anyone who doesn’t comply.

          There’s no effort to impose even that much on the Energy Commission or other panels.

          All of which means it will likely be business as usual in California government for at least another year, despite rhetoric from Rendon and other legislators who have advocated ex parte and other reforms to prevent regulators from favoring the very interests they’re supposed to rein in.

          Coming almost two years after revelations of the extent and consequences of PUC ex parte communications, this raises major questions about politicians who talk a good game on this but may not really mean it.

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

BIG SOLAR MAY HAVE PEAKED BEFORE IT EVEN OPENS

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2013 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
    “BIG SOLAR MAY HAVE PEAKED BEFORE IT EVEN OPENS”

          Back in October 2010, just a few days before his successor was to be anointed in a statewide election, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar trekked deep into the Mojave Desert to speechify at the groundbreaking for what will soon be America’s largest solar power plant.

          This is the Ivanpah Solar Generating Electric System, a 4,000-acre project not far off the Interstate 15 freeway between Las Vegas and the Los Angeles area. Due to open later this year or sometime in 2014, the privately-financed (except for a $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee) Ivanpah will produce 392 megawatts of power for customers of Southern California Edison Co. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

          A short time after it opens, another massive solar thermal project, the $1.6 billion Mojave Solar Project (with a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee) should begin producing 250 megawatts of power from its only slightly smaller array of panels, the juice going to PG&E over new power lines.

          Together, the two projects will produce about one-third of what the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station once put out, and what PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant generates now. That’s enough power for about half a million homes, a good-sized city.

          They won’t be the last of their type, but even before they open, their sort of facility may actually be on its way out, small solar possibly taking over for big solar in the effort to meet California’s goal of getting about a third of its electricity from renewable sources by the end of this decade.

          Big solar, of course, involves thousands of acres and billions of dollars, environmental challenges ranging from threats to endangered species to visual pollution from power lines spanning hundreds of miles.

          Little solar involves putting solar photovoltaic panels on rooftops and over parking lots. That takes relatively small investments by a lot of people and companies rather than just a few big operators. It’s a completely different model from what large utility companies do now.

          The possibility of this sea change in solar is suggested by two big cancellations made early this summer.

          First came the news in late June that the proposed Calico Solar Project, due to cover 12.5 square miles north of Interstate 40 near the small town of Ludlow not far from the Mojave National Preserve has been canceled. The developer, K Road Power, a consortium of several companies, had planned a gargantuan solar array that might generate as much as 850 megawatts.

          K Road listed “changed market conditions” as the reason for dumping this project. The change is that photovoltaic solar power has become more economically feasible. Another factor was that the technology planned for Calico has sometimes been problematic when tested.

          Then, in July, BrightSource Energy, developer of the Ivanpah plant, cancelled plans for another 4,000-acre project, this one called Rio Mesa, its towers in eastern Riverside County to have been visible from the Colorado River.

          One factor in this cancellation was the discovery of bones of extinct saber tooth cats during construction of another solar array about 60 miles off. This one, the 550-megawatt Desert Sunlight project near Joshua Tree National Park, is due online in 2015.

          All this doesn’t mean there will be no more big solar plants in California. But it does suggest that when they are built, they may be constructed nearer to existing transmission lines than are the ones due to open soon. That would cut the profits of the big utilities because they would reap fewer guaranteed profits for decades based on the costs of putting up new power lines.

          At the same time, a new study from Carnegie Mellon University may begin to turn off the spigot of federal loan guarantees so vital to big solar. This report suggests solar plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would cut far more pollution from America’s air than big solar in California ever can – even if they don’t produce as much power. That, the study said, is because solar plants there would replace coal-burning facilities which foul the air far more than the natural gas-fired power plants prevalent in California.

          Taken together, all this suggests the big solar construction boom may be ending within the next few years, tailing off even before the first large solar arrays open for business. Instead, the emphasis might switch to small solar, which would almost certainly be better for consumer pocketbooks.

    -30-
    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net