San Jose Councilmember Matt Mahan has a solution to help end homelessness: Prefabricated homes on public land.
That’s the proposal the District 10 councilmember will bring before the city’s Rules Committee on Wednesday. He hopes San Jose and Santa Clara County can identify sites to build prefabricated units, or housing that can be assembled quickly off-site while a foundation is being built at the final location.
Such a plan could effectively place 5,000 unhoused individuals in prefabricated homes by the end of next year—if the city and county can agree on it.
Mahan says it’s possible, so long as local government moves quickly and at a big scale.
“The money is there, the need is there, the land is there if you include other public agencies like the county (and) the cost-effective shelter is there now that prefabricated modular units have become mainstream,” Mahan told San José Spotlight. “All the ingredients are there to end street homelessness in our community, but there’s been a lack of political will across all levels of government to do it.”
The city and county have worked on solutions to try to curb the area’s homelessness crisis in recent years. But there have been delays in getting housing programs approved, a rejection of sanctioned homeless encampments by city leaders and San Jose’s plan to build 25,000 housing units by 2023—with 10,000 deemed affordable—is still far short of its goal.
The project is ambitious, Mahan says, but he believes the city and county can partner to build the sites, ramp up mental health and addiction treatment and end street homelessness locally. To do so, he says government must be willing to mandate individuals to accept safe and secure shelter.
Mahan wants the city to look at building prefab housing for homeless on public land in each of the six city districts that currently don’t have bridge or emergency housing sites—Districts 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and Mahan’s own District 10. That includes any sites owned by the city, Santa Clara County, Caltrans, VTA and Valley Water. The proposal would give homeless residents living in and around project sites first choice for units. Projects would be funded by a combination of the state’s Project Homekey and county and city funds through Measure A and Measure E.
“There’s new money from the state, and we really need to leverage what’s available,” said Mathew Reed, director of policy at Silicon Valley at Home, a San Jose-based housing nonprofit. “As has been the challenge for finding sites, there’s been no lack of work done, but we should acknowledge that we’ve been through this process before, so it will take a new kind of political will.”
The cost of prefab projects
Santa Clara County has looked to prefabricated units to house homeless residents before. In February, the county opened a site of 25, 100-square-foot units in the parking lot of San Jose’s former city hall. A 2019 project proposed in Willow Glen stalled in part because of its massive cost: $600,000 per unit made of recycled shipping containers.
Mahan believes his proposal can build affordable units quicker and for much less: $35,000 for each prefabricated home, totaling approximately $150,000 per unit once fully built out with utilities, furnishings, common space and facilities for onsite services.
By contrast, some multi-million dollar affordable housing projects cost upwards of $600,000 per unit and take years to build, as opposed to just weeks for some prefabrication projects.
“We have found a quick strike modular solution that we think is high-impact and low-cost and brings people indoors in a dignified and safe way,” Aubrey Merriman, CEO of LifeMoves, a nonprofit that has overseen prefabrication projects, told San José Spotlight. That includes a project in Mountain View with 100 units. “We need to think more like the Jetsons and less like the Flintstones.”
An acre of land can hold approximately 100 prefabricated units, per Mahan’s proposal. To build enough units to house roughly 5,000 people on the street, the city would have to set aside 50 acres. According to the city’s 2019 homeless census report, 6,097 people in the city are homeless.
Should the Rules committee vote in favor of the proposal, it will go in front of the City Council at a future date. Mahan aims for the city manager to come back with a list of potential sites for modular houses by December.
“If the leadership of the city and county were fully committed to ending street homelessness by the end of next year, it would be possible,” Mahan said. “We spend a lot of money on the Band-Aids of abating encampments and picking up trash and shuffling people around. These Band-Aids aren’t making anyone’s lives better. So I’d rather we put our energy into identifying the sites where we have the land and securing the tremendous amount of new state funding to build safe shelter with scale and speed.”
The San Jose Rules and Open Government Committee meets Wednesday at 2 p.m. You can watch the meeting here.
Contact Lloyd Alaban at l[email protected] or follow @lloydalaban on Twitter.
Our journalism is made possible by reader donations. If you value what we do, please contribute and help keep this vital resource accessible to all.
Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.
We’re changing the face of journalism by providing an innovative model for delivering independent news to the nation’s 10th largest city.
Yes, yes n yes. I do too.
San Jose has always been a leader in building affordable housing and supportive housing. Having said that other cities need to step up and take more actions regarding housing for the homeless. What public land we have available needs to be available for public use. Giving away public land for housing is only serving one type of resident and their needs. In August, I took some visiting family members to visit Kelly Park which is down the street from me and it was such a disappointment. HIstory park had an event and we could not enter. The Japanese Garden fish ponds were dry and Kelly Park looked dry and had no gardens or anything of interest. Happy Hollow is for kids and not visiting adults. I border District 7 and there are no nice parks, field tracks or sports tracks for families. I live next to Spartan Stadium but that is for university students only. We have no public pools or botanical gardens like other large cities. The Mayor and Council have no right to give away land meant for the public. When Reed was Mayor the council sold public land and now they want to do it again. They sold property that my neighborhood was hoping would become a neighborhood center to a private party and then that private property sold it at a profit to Catholic Charities for supportive housing. This land is located at the corner of S. 12th and Keyes.
Cardboard Boxes are Pre-Fab. It’s a temporary problem, right? so maybe temporary cardboard housing will work. Amazon may agree – and those appliance and furniture stores would be giving out Deluxe Models.
This ‘Urban Outdoor Dweller’ topic is getting old…
—————- Needs a little humor to keep it interesting —————
“I asked a pretty, young homeless woman if I could take her home. She smiled at me and said yes. The look on her face soon changed, however, when I walked off with her cardboard box.”
This proposal if enacted will not end homelessness but encourage more of it. Many of these persons are those AOC described as “unwilling to work.” Are we really expected to pay $150,00 for each of them?
5,000 units by the end of next year? Actual interim housing to meet the need? Maybe some political courage to move this forward? I would love to see this happen – and it’s time to stop making excuses on why we can’t scale up interim housing and shelter systems while the permanent housing is being constructed.
Finally someone on City Council is showing the will power to do the job effectively – and the quote below sums it up perfectly:
“We spend a lot of money on the Band-Aids of abating encampments and picking up trash and shuffling people around. These Band-Aids aren’t making anyone’s lives better. So I’d rather we put our energy into identifying the sites where we have the land and securing the tremendous amount of new state funding to build safe shelter with scale and speed.”
I just hope we don’t start hearing how “this is impossible.” We spend millions on throwing homeless peoples stuff away each year via the sweep process, and that needs to be put toward actual programs/projects that will make a difference – instead of making things worse.
Im veteran 70 yrs old Have 100% service related Disabilty and 7 O,% PTSD. I AM ONE OF THE FEW VETS STILL ALIVE AFTER VIET NAM WHICH WAS A SLAUTER OF AMERICA AND VIETMESE PEOPLE. WHEN WE RETURN SO GLAD TO BE HERE WE WERE IGNORED…AND FORGOTTEN. AND NOW I HAVE BEEN HOMELESS FOR 4 YRS MY HEALTH IS SO BAD.THE .VA PHONY LIARD HAVE ME SLEEP WITH THE DOGS. I am 2 time honored..VET AND TOLD TO SLEEP IN THE DIRT HOW CRUEL AND INSANE ARE HONOR THE VET MOGOL. .IT EAsy Elder Abuse of a honorable 70 yr vet, with no regards To if idie..or. live. I can not Get helo from anyone Especially the..SAVE THE VETERANS .NOT. FORGET THEM, AND MAKETHEM SLEEP. WITH THE DOGS INHUMAN SHAME
sounds good Matt, but you must pay for it, not taxpayers…
While I tend to agree with the proposal, I have one question. If San Jose has land available for these modular homes why can’t they come up with a single site for the individuals largely in RVs being swept from Spring Street over the next few months? A solution to affordable housing is desperately needed but one had to work on a parallel track to handle immediate unhoused issues that can’t be put on hold indefinitely. If CM Mahan was so concerned about the unhoused having a place he should have voted in favor of sanctioned encampments. The problems at the Apple and Spring Street sites might not have reached the level of absolute madness if sanctioned encampments had been established.
So we need 50 acres of land, $750,000,000 and homelessness is over in San Jose.
How much does it cost to take care of the 5,000 ‘homes’ once they are built? Utilities, insurance, repair & maintenance, security, common spaces, trash removal? Who’s going to be paid to manage it all and be responsible for it? Will we be hiring more city employees or paying the NGOs?
Can we see the plan for how people will get housed and how long we will be expected to take care of them? Will the housed individuals be required to be responsible for anything?
What happens when more homeless show up looking for the freebies?
I want to have hope for this plan, everyone deserves dignity, but I’m wondering how they do the following– “Government must be willing to mandate individuals to accept safe and secure shelter.”
This is a great point. In this case, I personally think, if the City scales up shelter and interim housing to meet the need of the unsheltered – then at that point, the City, when someone refuses shelter, can start to enforce camping laws. As soon as they create those opportunities – an ordinance should be create simultaneously, banning camping on sidewalks and parks.
The issue now is you can’t offer people anywhere to go – so the City would be legally liable for failing to provide adequate shelter options to people they kick-out. Once those adequate opportunities are constructed, and you can offer most, if not all shelter – and at that point they refuse? Then that is a different story. You can’t mandate they take the shelter – but you can offer it, and enforce the law if it’s declined…which is what needs to happen.
I have been chronically homeless I have always worked but unable to obtain affordable housing . This gives me hope that one day I may obtain sustainable affordable housing. I hope that that they approve this option for people that are struggling like me.
Mr. Mahan’s main point is correct: genuinely affordable housing built in a timely manner can only be accomplished on publicly-owned land, land that is outside the domain of land speculators, brokers, agents. Even neoliberal zealots can see this (https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/whats-next-for-guadalupe-river-park-and-sjs-homeless-crisis/#comment-1698926). But, while we’re at it, let’s expand public housing for all who need it–the houseless on an emergency basis and the much larger number of housing-burdened as soon as possible. The houseless in the city may be some 7,000 persons; the housing-burdened number in the range of 350,000, about one-half of the housing-burdened in the county (https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-puts-another-350-million-toward-affordable-housing/#comment-52075).
San Jose State University and all the public universities, not to mention all the Homekey projects undertaken in 2020-2021, are examples of housing built or refurbished by public entities, owned by such entities and located on publicly-owned land (https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/scc-supes-set-to-approve-350m-in-bonds-for-affordable-housing/#comment-1701435; https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/big-city-mayors-ask-state-for-20-billion-to-curb-homelessness/#comment-1701083). Such housing is cost-effective. No doubt, as suggested by Mr. Mahan, there are prefabricated housing options that can be part of the solution to hold down costs and shorten production times.
Mahan’s proposal to distribute affordable housing on public land located in numerous districts is a good one. But if he was serious about affordable housing, he would extend the proposal to all districts and would locate the projects at already-designated “urban village” sites (using eminent domain if necessary) that sufficiently large and compact and are in close proximity to public transport and public and private services and amenities. In other words, if Mr. Mahan were really serious about scaled solutions, he would propose jump-starting major urban villages near public transportation and amenities with public land and public housing in all city districts. Such an ambitious plan would be publicly and responsibly funded by taxes on large corporation revenues and the wealthy household so as to not add to public debt (https://sanjosespotlight.com/will-south-bay-keep-expanded-homeless-housing-post-pandemic/#comment-51122).
The hard lesson we should have learned by now is that the public sector has to lead and guide the private sector because the latter can never produce sufficient affordable housing on its own. We have a century of experience with almost exclusively private housing development that has utterly failed to meet San Jose’s–and the region’s–affordable housing needs.
What about treating the mental illnesses of homeless people? Asylums/sanitoriums used to be the vehicles to do address both housing and mental illness. Tiny houses without treatment of mental illness falls short. I’m glad this is a step in the right direction; we are housing Afghan refugees, it is high time we address our national problem of our homeless.
What about treating the mental illnesses of homeless people? Asylums/sanitoriums used to be the vehicles to address both housing and mental illness. Tiny houses without treatment of mental illness falls short. I’m glad this is a step in the right direction; we are housing Afghan refugees, it is high time we address our national problem of our homeless.
So many of us had high hopes for Mahan joining the council. Clearly those hopes are dashed and he’s just another utopian.
Matt, 1st we need accountability and results for the 10’s of millions, if not billions already being spent.
2nd, we need to stop rolling out the red carpet. Surely you understand that if we ‘house’ the current homeless population, it will only draw more seeking the easy life paid for by SJ taxpayers.
I think that this is the most logical cost effective way to make a huge dent in our homeless crisis. Manufactured homes in small communities throughout the city could be the tipping point for San Jose.
Yesterday during the mayor forum, I asked Supervisor Chavez her opinion on this solution. She spent several minutes talking around the issue, but the bottom line was that she said we need to make sure that all folks who build these units are qualified and well paid etc. and that this solution would not work for everyone.
I can’t help but think that this is code for saying that the estimated $150K per unit would need to balloon to some huge number to pay all of the unions, non-profits, politicians, and others before we could get down to building doors. I’m convinced that it is not a money problem that keeps people unhoused. It may even be that there is too much money and that has produced a long line of people that need to be paid off with little left to solve the problem.
This solution could actually work, if we started with those who are willing to be housed and live in small communities within larger communities throughout San Jose. Those whose personal challenges (drug addiction or mental illness) makes living in community impossible, will need greater services and perhaps the use of Laura’s Law, but surely a percentage of the homeless population could be housed within 6 months.
I fear that the same politicians who have not worked to solve the crisis will stay in power and keep the homeless on our streets and in out parks. In my most cynical moments, I think that the homeless problem is created by all the service providers, developers, and others who feed off of tax payer money. I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Let’s tackle this problem with the same focus that got us a covid vaccine in such a short time. If FEMA can erect shelter in days, and the military can set up bases within days, why can’t we get 3500 homeless people sheltered in 6 months by using the approach suggested in this article?
Mr. Mahan’s main point is correct: genuinely affordable housing built in a timely manner can only be accomplished on publicly-owned land, land that is outside the domain of land speculators, brokers, agents. Even neoliberal zealots can see this (https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/whats-next-for-guadalupe-river-park-and-sjs-homeless-crisis/#comment-1698926). But, while we’re at it, let’s expand public housing for all who need it–the houseless on an emergency basis and the much larger number of housing-burdened as soon as possible. The houseless in the city may be some 7,000 persons; the housing-burdened number in the range of 350,000, about one-half of the housing-burdened in the county (https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-puts-another-350-million-toward-affordable-housing/#comment-52075).
San Jose State University and all the public universities, not to mention all the Homekey projects undertaken in 2020-2021, are examples of housing built or refurbished by public entities, owned by such entities and located on publicly-owned land (https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/scc-supes-set-to-approve-350m-in-bonds-for-affordable-housing/#comment-1701435; https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/big-city-mayors-ask-state-for-20-billion-to-curb-homelessness/#comment-1701083). Such housing is cost-effective. No doubt, as suggested by Mr. Mahan, there are prefabricated housing options that can be part of the solution to hold down costs and shorten production times.
Mahan’s proposal to distribute affordable housing on public land located in numerous districts is a good one. But if he was serious about affordable housing, he would extend the proposal to all districts and would locate the projects at already-designated “urban village” sites (using eminent domain if necessary) that sufficiently large and compact and are in close proximity to public transport and public and private services and amenities. In other words, if Mr. Mahan were really serious about scaled solutions, he would propose jump-starting major urban villages near public transportation and amenities with public land and public housing in all city districts. Such an ambitious plan would be publicly and responsibly funded by taxes on large corporation revenues and the wealthy household so as to not add to public debt (https://sanjosespotlight.com/will-south-bay-keep-expanded-homeless-housing-post-pandemic/#comment-51122).
The hard lesson we should have learned by now is that the public sector has to lead and guide the private sector because the latter can never produce sufficient affordable housing on its own. We have a century of experience with almost exclusively private housing development that has utterly failed to meet San Jose’s–and the region’s–affordable housing needs.
I’m for it if at the same time we strictly prosecute illegal camping. Provide enough modular housing with rules of no drugs or violence. Anybody who still does homeless camping goes to jail.
Easy to support housing the homeless when it’s not in your neighborhood. Don’t forget that this sort of supportive housing is going to be within eyesight of someone’s front door. Would you volunteer your block to host or be neighbors to a pre-fab homeless camp?
Didn’t Matt oppose a pilot sanctioned encampment program which would be the quickest to help the most people at the least cost…..?
Your email address will not be published.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
We’re changing the face of journalism by providing an innovative model for delivering independent news to the nation’s 10th largest city.
Now in the App Store and Google Play
San José residents deserve a trusted source for unbiased, independent political news. And we’re here to provide it.
San José Spotlight is the city’s first nonprofit, community-supported digital news organization. We’re changing the face of journalism by providing an innovative model for delivering reliable, truthful news to the nation’s 10th largest city. We’re partnering with you – the readers – to make it happen. This is your newsroom.
San José Spotlight is a project of the San José News Bureau, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization | Tax ID: 82-5355128. | All donations are tax-deductible
Invest in our award-winning journalists during our Power Your Community Newsroom crowdfunding event June 13 - 24
The first 25 donors to commit to a monthly recurring gift of $10 or more will receive a FREE one-year digital subscription to The New York Times!
No thanks, I’m not interested!
Thanks, I’m not interested or already a subscriber