.
.
.
Residents of the Rio Vista neighborhood in East Anaheim are worried about the proposed homeless shelter [above] which is less than two miles away. Many neighbors feel that the location is too close and disagree with Spitzer’ assessment reported in the Voice of OC:
Located in a light industrial section of North Anaheim, the site is far from any residential neighborhood and is actually located near a strip club, Spitzer said at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting, alluding to the fact that other locations have been shot down due to their proximity to schools.
“If you can’t put this shelter a half a block from an all-nude strip club…in an all-commercial area…not near any homes, not near any schools, completely separated from residences by the 91 freeway and the Santa Ana River, then you probably can’t build it anywhere,” Spitzer said.
The closest businesses to the proposed site – piano store and strip club!
A freeway runs through it.
Is the proposed shelter REALLY too close to the Rio Vista neighborhood?
My recollection of homeless presence in the Rio Vista neighborhood consists of a mentally ill lady, and the APD made sure that she could exercise her rights without disturbing the public. For years, another homeless person who seemed to be mentally challenged had made the local library his daytime home. Other than these isolated situations, homeless people were not a common sight in this area until the late recession, when some families lost their homes. One of them had their furniture placed in the front yard for several weeks when they were evicted and did not have a place to move their belongings. Businesses also closed down. The only grocery store nearby, a Ralph’s, has been vacated since then, and the partially empty local shopping mall became a frequent camping ground for the homeless.
This neighborhood is ethnically and socioeconomically diverse, and has felt abandoned by city hall, even more now that our District Neighborhood Council Meetings are mostly held in Anaheim Hills. There was a feeling of being acknowledged when the area’s power undergrounding conversion was rescheduled for an earlier completion, and when the Anaheim Cove trail in the river was completed. The long awaited safety improvements in the Lincoln Bridge was another uplifting event and Supervisor Spitzer was credited for having this project finally done, as the bridge is under the County’s jurisdiction. There is significant crime activity nearby as reported by CrimeMapping.com
The magnitude of the shelter, a countywide one, has renewed the sense of a neglected neighborhood, and exacerbated the residents’ concerns about the negative perception attached to the homeless population. A respected and active neighbor sent me a summary of his reaction:
“Our little residential area is becoming a dumping ground for sex offenders and now it appears to be for the homeless. The facts:
- Nine registered sex offenders in a 1/2 mile square area bonded by the 91 and 57 Freeways, Lincoln Ave. and the Santa River.
- The area includes an Elementary School and Public Park frequented by sex offenders who have no other practical way to reach public transportation or just to visit the local, partially deserted strip mall.
- Yes, a strip club is located close to the proposed site. Its location was opposed by the local residents. We lost the battle because the area is classified as industrial. The same excuse used by Supervisor Spitzer.
- Supervisor Spitzer has never taken the time to visit our neighborhood. If he had, he would have realized that a river does not exist between the proposed homeless shelter and our residential neighborhood.
- The shelter is a 11-minute drive from the residential area.
- The proposed countywide shelter is in an extreme north county area location. It should be more centrally located to better serve all of the county homeless.
- The proposed location is not well served by public transportation. At least, it should be located closer to the public bus route which operates on Tustin Ave and Amtrak a block away. The Kraemer bus is infrequent and a bus to nowhere.”
The neighborhood – two miles away and across a feeway.
I don’t agree with the concept of homeless people being dumped, but this is the reality of how the general public reacts to shelter’s projects. There are pro and cons for a large centralized or smaller spread out throughout the county locations. A centralized large one would on paper better utilize staffing resources and services. Small ones would be geographically better as the county is a large one, which is the model used by the Social Services Agencies in most counties, including Orange. Also the causes and composition of the homeless population require more than establishing a shelter but policies addressing needs such as housing, jobs, health services.
It is commendable that both supervisors Nelson and Spitzer want to show leadership in this issue, but the Kraemer location may not be the most adequate solution for a countywide problem. As David Zenger comments in the VOC:
“…building a permanent facility and investing tons of money is seen as the easiest way to show one’s care and concern, regardless of the efficacy of the final product.
In my view not enough attention (or virtually none) has been given to the idea of very local focus shelters that can hand out immediate support and close down when the need passes or the population moves elsewhere. If I am wrong, I would love to see the analysis that concludes a 20,000 sf central facility in some remote corner of the County is the wisest investment offering the best results.”
See update: /council-to-neighbors-of-anaheim-canyon-we-will-take-the-credit-you-will-take-the-burden/
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 7, 2015
4:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
27. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM offering support for the County of Orange’s efforts to develop a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center for North Orange County.
RESOLUTION NO 2015- _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OFFERING SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE’S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A YEAR-ROUND HOMELESS EMERGENCY SHELTER AND MULTI-SERVICE CENTER FOR NORTH ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, non-profits, faith-based organizations, local governments, including the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange, are concerned about homelessness in Orange County and continue to work tirelessly to identify effective solutions that will result in permanent housing; and,
WHEREAS, while the ultimate goal is permanent housing for the homeless, there still is an urgent need for a year-round emergency shelter and multi-service center in North Orange County to meet the critical needs of the homeless and to address a pressing social issue that is deeply impacting local businesses and communities; and,
WHEREAS, the County has adopted a Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness including a strategy to develop year-round emergency shelters to replace the seasonal emergency shelter program; and,
WHEREAS, the County is considering a potential site within Anaheim’s City-limits, located in an industrial area of the Canyon Business Center, and though the County believes there is legal authority to establish an emergency shelter on any property it owns within the County, the County desires to work in a collaborative fashion and receive the support of local jurisdictions;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that it is supportive of the County of Orange’s effort to consider locating a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center at the site presently under County consideration, including, but not limited to, consideration of a zoning code amendment, if determined necessary, and consideration of funding assistance that, if agreed upon, would be memorialized in a future agreement, and coordination of local services for the successful operation of a multi-service center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that by adopting this Resolution, the City Council is not committing itself or agreeing to undertake any acts or activities requiring the subsequent independent exercise of discretion by the City Council, the City or any commission, committee or department thereof. This City Council recognizes that one or more of the conditions to the County’s proposal may fail to be met as a result of subsequent studies, reviews and proceedings involving the exercise of discretion by the County, the City Council, the City or any commission, committee or department thereof.
I’m sympathetic to Todd here – two miles away, and on the other side of a freeway? (Even if he got the river part wrong.) And it’s not true that that site’s not served by public transit – the La Palma bus goes right by it, connecting it to… La Palma Park, a homeless mecca! If we’re not gonna have the county listen to sensible but imaginative ideas put forth by Zenger and the Winships, which we aren’t, I can’t think of a better northeast county location for a shelter.
These folks – how do you change NIMBY from “Not in My Backyard” to “Not in My Quadrant of the City?”
It’s not two miles away and that’s not the point, either. The real issue is why the Homeless Crusaders want to blow millions upon millions on a location – any location – that they can get, really. The suggested site is nowhere near any homeless population and will in some fashion become a the drop-off/dumping ground that will help allieve all this petty bourgeois guilt. WE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING, DAMMIT!!
And when you have kicked out the homeless to build a non-budgeted dog park, buster have you got a lot of guilt to allieve.
Tom Tait understands well the need for small, more local, agile and flexible spaces to deal with this issue. Building a permanent homeless palace is not the answer – unless your goal is activity and cost over accomplishment. If you don’t believe me check out the completely ridiculous mental health facility facility in Orange built by the County. $13,000,000 in prop 69 dough blown to make Bill Campbell look like he cares – without the usual waterworks.
Another nasty wrinkle is the fact that Anaheim spent several millions to buy a piece of property next to the Karcher HQ for a homeless shelter. Who was responsible for that f-up? Who will benefit from the City owning that juicy piece of rezonable property?
The BS is rising so fast around here you need wings to stay above it.
P.S. the only thing Spitzer knows about this area is that there’s an “all-nude” bar nearby.
You are missing a couple of vial points here Vern. A) Its not in Spitzers district so he can try and push this onto his colleague Nelson without having to deal with any repricussions by his constituency. And B) He can pad his resume with the establishment of a homeless shelter in his list of accomplishments while not having to deal with any of the negative impacts or complaints from residents as that is not his district. And C) He gets another shot at the microphone, the tv cameras and ink in the OC Register.
I’m pretty sure this is in the 3rd District – barely.
Well, in that respect, Spitzer never changes.
What about being sympathetic to the neighbors who may understand the need to find some solutions but are left facing to deal with a COUNTYWIDE problem?
It is the magnitude of the project that shocks many neighbors. How many people are going to be housed? Are they going to be mostly families in transition and/or permanent residents for the entire spectrum of the homeless population?
You should’ve done your homework, and not just taking pictures and making a case in the captions that it is not too close to the residential area, which is not the main point anyway. Why would you support warehousing people, just because they are homeless and uprooting them from their original residential area? What about plans for providing housing for the families and temporary shelters throughout the county?
The Winships have a better thought-out plan than you and your pal Todd. Do not buy into the economy of scale argument in this type of issues. Do you know about the fiscal year in the county businesses process, how all of sudden IT equipment, building renovations, more trainings are done in the last quarter of the fiscal year? It is surplus budget, which could easily be allocated for needs like the homelessness. If it costs more money, so what? It is a worthwhile expenditure to keep our community as balanced and vibrant as possible.
It is not as simple as NIMBY lazy counter argument. It is about effective and genuine leadership. Cities like Salt Lake have come about with long term sensible solutions : housing.
http://www.thenation.com/article/184017/city-came-simple-solution-homelessness-housing
I’m not sure how it could affect the neighborhood, seeing as there is the geographical barrier of the FWY.
Shelters throughout the county doesn’t seem to be a very effective solution – that takes limited resources and spreads them thin, and would necessarily add a giant layer of bureaucracy.
There is a significant population that lives along the river, fairly close to this location. It seems like an OK spot.
Do you have the number of the significant population that lives along the river next to this location? The Kraemer/Glassel bridge is a couple of blocks away from this site.
Wall Street and the automobile companies were bailed out and their CEOs are making astronomical salaries, and we can not afford to finance sensible solutions to problems affecting all of us. There is something wrong with our priorities.
“Shelters throughout the county doesn’t seem to be a very effective solution – that takes limited resources and spreads them thin, and would necessarily add a giant layer of bureaucracy.”
I disagree. It’s the centralized facility that creates the permanent and fixed bureaucracy. The biggest part of the problem is that people approach it with fixed concept and preconceptions – especially the top down solutions that cost thew most and achieve the least. You don’t mention the bite that a $10,000,000 homeless shelter would take out of those “limited resources” you talk about.
The problem has never even remotely been about limited resources anyhow. Anaheim kicked the homeless out of the east end of la Palma Park and built a $500,000 dog park.
The problem has been about political indifference, ignorance about the intended served population, and worst of all political grandstanding.
This is the problem. Something must be done. Even some OC Supe’s finally get it. But what can be done? & what will be done?
I understand both sides here. The location seems feasible, yet some folks in Anaheim are frustrated over the county trying to dump this problem on them. I just hope something is finally done so that this county stops neglecting so many of its own.
Locations are not the problem, the previously considered locations in Fullerton, Santa Ana and Central Anaheim were feasible. Sups know about the “problem” since they take office. There is a Homeless Prevention and a Commission to End Homelessness in the County Govt.
A comprehensive Information about the homeless population may mitigate the negative reaction in the community, something that the Human Relations Commission could do. See the link below about a sample of the reaction.
I don’t know how familiar you are with this location. It is 0.6 miles across from the edge of this neighborhood across the bridge over the freeway . The building is practically a warehouse. The Karcher site seems to have some green space and it is in the middle of a more integrated and central urban area.
http://voiceofoc.org/2014/08/hundreds-turn-out-to-protest-santa-ana-homeless-shelter/
What’s wrong with using the Karcher site?
Apart from the fact that it’s near a homeless population and already paid for?
Seriously, I felt it was on the wrong side of Karcher Way from a cost standpoint. There are already places between Karcher and La Palma Park Way that would have been better, including a big parking lot that is only used for events at the stadium and may already be owned by the city. There is (was) a dirt lot where the carney’s parked during the Cinco De Mayo gig at the park, etc.
I can only assume that somebody in Anaheim City Hall believes there is a better use for the property off Karcher Way. I’m sure Cunningham will soon let us know.
So what’s wrong with it is that — some private party could be making money off of it (as well as off of developing a new central site) and if it were used then they would have to make money some other way? OK, I guess that that’s a compelling public purpose.
Winships are making sense with their longer comment, although regarding their shorter one I’m nor sure that “limited time Eminent Domain” exists, does it?
““limited time Eminent Domain” exists, does it?” Thinking out of the box…never hurts. Who is going to challenge Time Linited Eminent Domain?
Guess we will have to provide a definition first ….eh?
*We already figured this thing out a couple of years back. Building anything permanent
is a non starter. This areas have to be floating, transferrable and expandable. Mobile
Medical and Dental facilities. Mobile food trucks and various agencies making sure these areas remain safe, clean and those that are felons …..are quickly removed. The drive now is to start with Veterans who require housing in volunteer residential housing. Someone can’t house 10 homeless vets and collect a stipend for each one from the County or State. However, housing one homeless vet, with no criminal, drug or perscription drug additions could be helpful. Especially, female vets with young children. Meanwhile, various unused strip malls could be converted to simple housing with mobile resources to support them. The numbers in these facilities may grow or become less. When the numbers remain low, those folks are moved to another facility.
Right now, Developers want the easy money from the County – to build and operate
these facilities. This is where we part with Public/Private Enterprise. Greed is a hard
task master and as soon at the BOS fights local folks and calls for Eminent Domain..
the results will not be pretty…for anyone. Let alone the stakeholders and homeless.
*What about limited time Eminent Domain? 1 year, 18 months perhaps? This way the neighborhood will not have to worry about any long term property devaluation.
Vern,
You know this location is about 3,000 feet from Suite C.
Serio? I thought the Wordsmith lived and worked in Orange.
Who is the current owner of the proposed site, and are they related to anybody “famous”? That, and time vacant / on the market, might be interesting information.
BBORW, the better question is who wants to own the first site in Anaheim.
Where is Jim Palmer and his multiple efforts to serve the homeless, such as the Village of Hope, on dealing iwth this population? Or, is he creaming the easiest to serve part of the homeleess population and leaving the most difficult for mother government?
The proposed site may be accepted by the City Council : ” NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that it is supportive of the County of Orange’s effort to consider locating a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center at the site presently under County consideration”
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 7, 2015
4:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
27. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM offering support for the County of Orange’s efforts to develop a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center for North Orange County.
RESOLUTION NO 2015- _____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OFFERING SUPPORT FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE’S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A YEAR-ROUND HOMELESS EMERGENCY SHELTER AND MULTI-SERVICE CENTER FOR NORTH ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, non-profits, faith-based organizations, local governments, including the City of Anaheim and the County of Orange, are concerned about homelessness in Orange County and continue to work tirelessly to identify effective solutions that will result in permanent housing; and,
WHEREAS, while the ultimate goal is permanent housing for the homeless, there still is an urgent need for a year-round emergency shelter and multi-service center in North Orange County to meet the critical needs of the homeless and to address a pressing social issue that is deeply impacting local businesses and communities; and,
WHEREAS, the County has adopted a Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness including a strategy to develop year-round emergency shelters to replace the seasonal emergency shelter program; and,
WHEREAS, the County is considering a potential site within Anaheim’s City-limits, located in an industrial area of the Canyon Business Center, and though the County believes there is legal authority to establish an emergency shelter on any property it owns within the County, the County desires to work in a collaborative fashion and receive the support of local jurisdictions;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that it is supportive of the County of Orange’s effort to consider locating a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center at the site presently under County consideration, including, but not limited to, consideration of a zoning code amendment, if determined necessary, and consideration of funding assistance that, if agreed upon, would be memorialized in a future agreement, and coordination of local services for the successful operation of a multi-service center.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that by adopting this Resolution, the City Council is not committing itself or agreeing to undertake any acts or activities requiring the subsequent independent exercise of discretion by the City Council, the City or any commission, committee or department thereof. This City Council recognizes that one or more of the conditions to the County’s proposal may fail to be met as a result of subsequent studies, reviews and proceedings involving the exercise of discretion by the County, the City Council, the City or any commission, committee or department thereof.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 7th day of April, 2015, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
___________________________________
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
I did not realize that the proposed site is in the Canyon Business Center, which includes the Northwest area of Kraemer Blvd, which is an older /depressed area (Miraloma Ave, Blue Gum) in comparison with the East area alongside Santa Ana Canyon Rd.
The corridor project started in 2009, according to the City’s website: “Anaheim is delighted to receive this federal grant which will allow us to to create a pedestrian walkway linking the Metrolink to businesses in the Canyon Business Center,” said Mayor Pringle. “It will help reduce traffic in our region by making our mass transit more user friendly.”
“Economic recovery and growth are top priorities for the Obama Administration,” said McGowan. “This EDA grant will create jobs now, help ease access to the new Kaiser Permanente hospital complex and the PacifiCenter retail center, and will support the City’s goal of creating a viable transit-oriented mixed-use, business, and retail district in the Anaheim Canyon Corridor.”
Trying to place Ricardo’s mention of “Canyon Business Center” I mistakenly thought it was a local designation (and not the whole region!) perhaps near Tustin Ave, (Wrong!)and turned to Google to learn more. Besides the above correction, the FIRST item in the returned results was “A New Class for Industrial Parks”, a 180 pg PDF from 2012, evidently a UCI student Masters thesis, which was ALSO supplied ( for $_??__) to Anaheim’s planning Dept. concerning “revitalization” of this “aging” district. (Google the title to get there directly.)
Time permitting, I recommend a perusal, as the approach struck me oddly,(perhaps just me) that it began by outlining the concept of “eco parks” involving ‘amenities’ etc.in comparison with Irvine, and Silicon Valley ( a relationship I, as a ‘civilian’, could not connect) and then seemed to begin advocacy that this was necessary for this area. I have no aspirations of a Masters or any other study in this area, but I would have expected a study of the regional needs, vs resources available by this area and some comparison of the two, with a resulting prescription. This seems to put the solution cart before the analysis horse, but again that’s just me. I don’t know if this BECAME the specific plan, was just a proposal, etc. but I wonder what’s occurring with this input at City Hall?
(Funny, a homeless shelter didn’t seem to come up as one of the suggested amenities.)
Well, FWIW-
The drive to build a big, year-round shelter somewhere (anywhere!) makes it impossible to find a place that will offend no one by the presence of such a facility.
Then the “advocates” – who are mostly professional altruists, political grandstanders, and the permanent house-acrats – will decry NIMBYISM when the adjacent businesses or residents or school administrators cry foul.
Now let’s just say you have sunk your life savings in a piano store and have signed up for a lengthy lease and you have invested a freakin’ ton of money in inventory. And now some preening megalomaniac like Spitzer or Nelson comes along to demonstrate his superior commitment to the “Ten Year Plan (only four to go!) to End Homelessness.” Well, what are you supposed to do? Suck it up?
Not so oddly, the problem suggests a solution, or series of solutions that generally mitigate the problem of finding the Perfect Site: we don’t need a single site at all.
The significance that the resolution mentions the “Canyon Business Center” is that most of the development of this Center is between Kraemer and Tustin Ave (Kaiser Hospital, the old Boeing buildings, Metrolink station) which is not as close to residential areas.
The proposed site next to the piano store is a depressed area without any indication of being renovated. Confining the homeless population to this industrial area, other than providing a roof and some services, is not the most adequate and feasible solution. Children exposed to the Strip Club may internalize this type of business as a normal event in their lives. The restriction of this mature business does not apply to them. Access to green areas, parks will either be walking a few blocks or riding an already busy bus route on La Palma Ave.
Any centralized location has the potential of a greater negative impact of bringing down the surrounding business and residential property values. It could increase the risks to the nearby communities if the services are inadequate to address the homeless issues other than housing. The resolution in the Council agenda seems to be a “fait accompli” decision, which is kind of surprising. You would think that both the County and City representatives would’ve engaged the impacted community to mitigate concerns.
Unless this is proposed as an adult-only homeless facility, is Spitzer (or others) aware of the ‘double standard’ of prohibiting Strip Club proximity to children in church or in school, but NOT in a homeless facility? I would think the existing Club location has priority(?) so perhaps (if the shelter is not limited to adult clientele) his question of “where can you put it, if NOT near an adult club, etc.?” needs to be rephrased to “HOW could you put it near an adult club?”
Ricardo, I have a HUGE rebuttal to this agenda item being edited now, but let me summarize.
There is no evidence that homeless shelters depress property values and LONG TERM ACADEMIC STUDIES show in many cases they improve them. The baseline is not Shelter VS No Homeless, it is homeless in a shelter v homeless on the street. One depresses property values and it ain’t the shelter! It is also cheaper to house the homeless than pay for the public costs of the affects from leaving them on the streets.
Why is there an assumption that the homeless are all predators? Is there a study for that? In fact, since when does a local agency make “findings” of negative impacts so significant they cannot be mitigated and the land use decision must be shifted to another site, WITHOUT STUDY for impacts?
Services are already inadequate, we get closer to adequate with a shelter than without, When word gets out that the shelter is full, people are not going to hang around, and county wide Police are not going to drop their homeless on Anaheim and overwhelm us, unless they want the Anaheim Chief’s perfectly polished boot up their butts for dropping their work load on his department.
Most of all, I want to know why we are discussing the care and shelter of HUMAN BEINGS as though this is a trash sorting facility to be placed on the edge of the community? And I hope Todd Spitzer can hear me ask that question over the sound of me throwing breakable objects at the wall when I consider his holier than thou “those people can go over there where we don’t have to look at them” bullshit.
So enough with the NIMBYism. This problem with La Palma Park being overrun is in my neighborhood, not Ricardo’s, not the industrial park, and I want my tax dollars used to mitigate the problem of homelessness in my neighborhood by putting the shelter in at Karcher site where it will serve the population already here. That sounds counterintuitive, but because because of location near homes, schools, etc the shelter will not be able to serve predators, by State law, so I feel pretty safe about it. I already have homeless all around me, unmonitored, so why would I not want to get some help pulling them off the streets, into temporary shelter where they can get plugged into the system and into homes for long term sustainable housing. Even if we set up a camp site on the Karcher property where they can go and BE safe and legal and not hassled by cops, I have better use for Police time than collecting homeless encampment bags in the parks, La Palme Park is not appropriate because it is not a campsite so let’s give folks a campsite. No we will not import people, that assumes people want to be homeless, which is stupid, and it assumes they want to leave the only comfort of the community they are in that is familiar and that is not proven by studies either.
So yes, please, BUILD THIS IN MY BACK YARD the alternative is not cool to live with.
“…I want my tax dollars used to mitigate the problem of homelessness in my neighborhood by putting the shelter in at Karcher site where it will serve the population already here.”
No you may not have that. That was really just a little misunderstanding. What? Who? Us? Where? Huh?
“Even if we set up a camp site on the Karcher property where they can go and BE safe and legal and not hassled by cops, I have better use for Police time than collecting homeless encampment bags in the parks, La Palme Park is not appropriate because it is not a campsite so let’s give folks a campsite.”
Better yet, how about some modular buildings, installed on permeable pavement at a tiny fraction of the cost of a big new or remodeled building?
http://www.buildingpro.com/modular-showers-toilets.html
Cynthia, the initiative of sup Speitzer has moved the discussion beyond the Shelter vs Homeless on the Street. By now most people understand the need of providing shelter. The lack of specific information as to the composition of the homeless population, as stated by the Winships in their new post, makes it hard to have a better discussion regarding the solution. Inadequate information makes the general public react in a negative way. The evidences that property values are not negatively impacted by homeless shelters, as well as that homeless are not “predators”, need to be shared with our neighbors resisting these projects. I think that the optimal temporary solution is to have multiple small centers throughout the county, that addresses the need of the homeless population and the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. This issue is nationwide and a similar discussion is taking place in a city in Washington . See article posted April 3, 2015:
http://www.yakimaherald.com/news/latestlocalnews/3046436-8/neighbors-voice-reservations-over-proposed-homeless-shelter
*Yeah Sheriff Joe Arpaio has some nice used tents you guys can pick up to put under the 5 Fwy…….. a little humanity wouldn’t hurt along with all the negative rhetoric. Think Solutions people…solutions!
And even the 5 freeway is MILES from NB-
As expected the resolution was approved. Kris Murray made a compelling closing argument and commended the role played by Brandman as a liaison between the city and the county. A large number of the public were supporters of this resolution, and the people expressing concerns were minimal. It was surprising that none of the council members acknowledged the concerns of the neighborhood. A letter was sent to each one of them. I guess they did not receive it before the meeting.
Watch the Karcher site to see what profitable use goes in there and who gets the campaign donations when it is done.
This was a land use issue and they blew it. I am glad something will be done to build something, and hopefully it will open the door to more help, but how frustrating that the Kleptocracy hijacked something for what I believe will turn out to be private profit.
THANK YOU to all who showed up and spoke or wrote to the Council.
You’ve heard it here first: The City of Anaheim will build a bona fide four-star hotel there, on its own, and gain all of the (supposed) benefits that the Staff and Council majority were talking about tonight. It can borrow for cheaper, it doesn’t pay tax, and it doesn’t have to worry about regulations. And then they can rescind the deal with O’Connell if he hasn’t yet detrimentally relied upon it and he can build a regular three-star hotel that he can finance by himself.
Normally I wouldn’t suggest something that socialistic for Orange County — but they claim that one four-star hotel will raise the value of all other hotels in Anaheim, so I think that it’s OK to have a government-run enterprise. And frankly, crony capitalistic subsidies are just as socialistic — it’s just dumb socialism.
(Alternatively, the city can trade the lot to O’Connell and take over building in GardenWalk itself.)
Second choice: big big affordable housing development.
“Second choice: big big affordable housing development.”
That is exactly what will go in there and they won’t even need a zone change. I suspect (don’t know) it was actually the Anaheim Housing Authority that spent the millions to buy this using restricted funds. So watch for a carefully guided RFP process awarded to some “affordable” housing developer who has engaged the services of a well-known local lobbyist.
If General Funds were used to buy this site, the Kleptos are going to have a much harder time disposing of this asset in the direction of PringleCorp.
Isn’t blurring the line between business and government more closely called fascism than socialism? P-P-P hooray ! Just wondering.
Sort of.
Fascists control production for the benefit of the State but leave the private interests in financial control – so long as they toe the party line.
No, this would be government supplanting business to provide a service that serves the public good but is too expensive for private industry to provide. You need to watch the video: their argument is that having one 4-star hotel in Anaheim will boost the entire hotel industry. Yet apparently the private sector can’t do it without massive public subsidy. So, socialize the project — which is better than socializing the cost while privatizing the profit.
Using the state’s power and wealth to enrich the private sector, which then supports the ruling faction, is closer to Mussolini’s “corporatism” flavor of fascism, but I can’t call the kleptos “fascist” without their qualifying on other points as well.
The principal element of fascism whether in Spain, Hungary,Germany, or Italy was to recognize a national “geist” that manifested itself in a peculiar national genius.
I think you will find some of this in the boosterism that defines a municipality in exceptionalist terms – terms identifying peculiar “economic engines,” for instance, The other defining feature of fascism is the identification of the evil and clandestine “other.” Cunningham keeps trying to make this the vague “leftists/socialists” like Jose Moreno.
The only thing that keeps this comedy from really looking sinister is the opera buffo quality of the Anaheim Show, with characters like Lucy Dunn, Todd Ament, Lucy Kring, Debbie Moreno and Jordan Brandman (Mr. Procedure-wank).
It’s an important element of fascist ideology — although less so economics — but I don’t find it that distinctive. Plenty of non-fascist cultures and societies do the same thing.
I generally don’t throw around that particular F-word — although I did make an exception last year for Lucille Kring’s “saved us the cost of a trial,” where I think it was in-bounds — because Anericans are reluctant to even consider the possibility that that term could apply to us. (They’ll accept that “socialist” applies all over the place, even where it doesn’t, but not “fascist.”) It shuts down debate so quickly and thoroughly that I usually don’t try to debate the ancillary point of the proper label — except with people who can handle such a discussion — because it means that the argument over what it was I substantively *cared* about gets lost.
I have to disagree with you there.
The economic control goes toward directing a military/war-based economy that served to promote and expand the nationalist expansion policies that are concomitant with the sense of national and ethnic uniqueness, paired with a paranoid sense of persecution. The philosophy can be pursued earnestly or exploited cynically.
The one thing that never fails with fascism is the build up to constant military agitation, arousal, exercise.
In this sense fascism as a meaningful concept can’t be applied to an American city.
“The one thing that never fails with fascism is the build up to constant military agitation, arousal, exercise.
In this sense fascism as a meaningful concept can’t be applied to an American city.”
Some of the recent news items about (federally) militarized police and actions in parks and particular neighborhoods, might provoke different perspectives there on that.
The resolution is a pragmatic starting point and as such should be supported if not immediate alternatives are available. If the Commission on Homelessness has spent years researching and working on solutions, you’d think that there are no alternatives. I tried to read their information but I gave up trying to figure how to navigate the new PDF SODA files used in their reports.
At the city council meeting I felt being in the odd position of somehow disagreeing with the overwhelming support for this site from the public attending the meeting. I almost did not speak up. It was not the site or a site I was objecting but the centralized single approach. I did not have the time to express the concerns of my neighborhood. It would’ve not mattered anyway, it seems that speaking up at the city council meetings does not make any difference. As many times in other situations, the council members had made their minds up already.
Perhaps the sensitivity of the issue made necessary to make a fast and quiet decision without input or consideration of the community near the site. From this point of view it was a lack of leadership including our highly regarded Mayor Tait.*They must have had known of the concerns, a neighbor wrote to each one of them and as of this evening he has not received a response. Neighbors feel that this is the Government against the people, people being the residents of the city. To have Kriss Murray making a speech on homelessness and praising Brandman for his role was out of their character. I hope Murray speak to the neighbors who had talked to her about their reluctance to have the Cove trail extended to the Glassell bridge, because of their fear of having the trail too close to their backyards.
The unanimous resolution could be a game changer on how homelessness is viewed and addressed in the county if the shelter succeeds. The surrounding community needs to be incorporated, informed, to contribute to this process. So far, this process has been flawed. Many uncertainties remain (see the comments by Ms Schroeder in Cynthia’s related post for example) and they need to be addressed.
• A note to the two Klepto PR: Mayor Tait’s leadership on the fundamental and long term issues benefiting the City is outstanding.
The mayor was told by the City Attorney that he couldn’t be involved in homeless shelter issues because that involves the County and Tait has contracts in the Public Works Department – conflict of interest. Flimsy as Hell?
They can’t afford to have him getting in the way of deals by asking all those embarrassing questions.
I wish he would get a second opinion rather than do whatever Houston tells him he has to do. Such a boy scout.
A flyer was distributed in the neighborhood’s mailboxes this weekend. This is the text:
Coming Soon To 1000 Kraemer Place In Anaheim: A Permanent, Year-Round Homeless Shelter
You may not be aware the County of Orange is moving very rapidly to establish a permanent, year-round homeless shelter less than half a mile from your neighborhood at 1000 Kraemer Place in Anaheim (La Palma & the 91 Fwy west bound on-ramp). It would be open 24/7 next to Anaheim businesses and in near proximity to neighborhoods. The County is working to quickly purchase this site, with financial support from the City of Anaheim.
We can all agree homelessness is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed, but this is a poor location for a permanent, year-round, 24/7 shelter that would concentrate the homeless on a site without convenient access to services and amenities.
Many questions are unanswered: how will the homeless get to/from the shelter? How will concentrating the homeless population here impact property values, desirability as a work location and general quality of the area? Will homeless individuals be guaranteed a place in the shelter, or have to line-up every day to secure a spot for the night? What is the rush to establish this shelter with so little public input and outreach?
County government leader don’t want a homeless encampment at the Santa Ana civic center. But is moving those homeless to 1000 Kraemer Place in Anaheim a better solution? A growing group of individuals, business and property owners think a better site can be found by working together in a spirit of transparency and good will. Joining our cause and stay informed: e-mail us at bettersolutions4anaheim@gmail.com or visit BetterSolutions4Anaheim.com.
IMPORTANT! This Tuesday, May 5, the Anaheim City Council votes on a funding agreement to spend $500,000 in city funds on this proposed homeless shelter. The meeting starts at 5:00 p.m. Please attend and tell the City Council your opinion about this quietly fast-moving plan to build a permanent, year-round homeless shelter in our area.
We also urge you to contact OC Supervisors Todd Spitzer and Shawn Nelson, and the Anaheim City Council with your opinions, concerns and questions:
OC Board of Supervisors
Chairman Todd Spitzer, 3rd District: (714) 834-3330, Todd.Spitzer@ocgov.com
Sup. Shawn Nelson, 4th District: (714) 834-3440, Shawn.Nelson@ocgov.com
Anaheim City Council (714) 765-5247
Mayor Tom Tait: ttait@anaheim.net
Mayor Pro Tem Lucille Kring lkring@anaheim.net
Councilmember Kris Murray kmurray@anaheim.net
Councilmember Jordan Brandman jbrandman@anaheim.net
Councilmember James Vanderbilt jvanderbilt@anaheim.net
Perhaps someone can point out where I missed it in both the Staff Report and the Agreement, but am I the only one curious, as to why there is NO MENTION anywhere of the COUNTY’S financial contribution (or even so much as an estimate)? (Other than the 3-way split of “due diligence” costs on 1-A, pg 3) (Which would possibly counter the expected response that “the 2 Cities cost’s are then capped”)
With the City’s seeming focus on the (“Noble”) GOALS, RATHER than the PATH to get there, It seems to be the trend (or the RULE) in Anaheim City communications to the public to REMOVE or OMIT as much CONTEXT as possible, making the presented question a Yes /No decision, without presentation (OR solicitation) or slim-to-no evidence of consideration, of Alternatives (beyond the mostly ‘false choice’ of Doing Nothing), leaving these GAPS to be discovered AND EXPLOITED by negotiation counter-parties. The most glaring recent reminder might be the “Angels Team Name” fiasco, but many MORE seem to wait in the wings.
With e-documents ubiquitous, it CAN’T be due to the cost of ink!
Somebody better be willing to explain the embarrassing and now seemingly pointless purchase of the Karcher property.
The flyer/circular for tomorrow’s council meeting is, in the words of a neighbor, a slick and professional one. I haven’t found out yet who created this BetterSolutions4Anaheim organization, as the name implies a scope larger than one neighborhood issue. So far they have reached out to the council members, who may read their e-mails or clear their voice mails before the council meeting. I don’t expect many neighbors showing up, and I hope that the homeless’ advocates listen to their concerns in good faith. I also hope that the neighbors will reconsider their views on property values and quality once they become familiar with the studies showing that shelters improve property values. I am inserting the link for Cynthia’s post in case somebody have not read about these studies:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/04/yes-in-my-back-yard-in-defense-of-a-homeless-shelter-at-the-karcher-site/
I hope that Mayor Tait will be able to speak up this time. The advocates deftly reminded him of his City of Kindness ‘ trademark, and he will be reminded again even more when he recently met the Dalai Lama in India. If the council is not willing to modify their decision and find a better solution, they need at least to address the concerns of the neighbors.
Council members need to take a short walk or drive across the Kramer bridge which crosses the freeway. There are several residential neighborhoods between one and two miles from the proposed homeless shelter site. The Santa Ana river trail is also steps away. Residents who frequent the trail will no longer feel safe to do so. Olive Elementary school is also within walking distance from the site and so is Fletcher Elementary School,
Mr. Spitzer, I understand why you promote this site. This site is on the border of the city of Anaheim and the City of Orange. Check it out. check out the numbers of residents you are affecting in the city of Orange! We are taxpayers and voters and deserve representation!
OC rescue mission does 90 days incarceration and religious conversion. They want tyou to lose your VASH or section8 voucher. Ther needs to be appropriate and accessible shelters in addtion to these set up for substance rehab and religion. Every district in OC needs to share the burden. Congressional 48 produces a lot of the substance abusers and also is becoming so unaffordable many single physically or mh disabled and seniors are being pushed back to the road- even us veterans. Closing the state hospital wiht not enough accessible affrodable housing as it is – is also helping to push more other disabled back to the road as that one group has all the Middle class and up political and agency clout.