Ahead of Sept. 30 Homelessness Forum, Mercy House’s Larry Haynes Clarifies Remark on ‘Values’

.

.

.

Larry Haynes, Executive Director of Mercy House, speaks before Board of Supervisors on June 2, 2015.

On June 2, as the Board of Supervisors contemplated creation of a “Multiservice Facility” on Kraemer Place in Anaheim Canyon, Mercy House CEO Larry Haynes spoke to them in part about “values.”  Not just human values: property values.  It has proven controversial.

The website for “BetterSolutions4Anaheim” — owned, written and operated for pay by Matt Cunningham — excerpted a portion of Haynes’s speech, calling it a “refreshing exception” to “intellectual dishonesty”:

“This is not good verus evil.  For a business to want to prosper, that is a legitimate point of view. We need that tax base. We need those jobs. We are not anti-prosperity. It absolutely has to happen. We can want to do all the good we want, but if we don’t protect those basic things we’re going to run ourselves into the ground.

So one of the things that we are in fact able to do, we have to start with the perspective that when a homeowner, for example, suggests that this is a threat to their property, acknowledge that that is in fact true. Acknowledge that is in fact a possibility. That is the biggest financial investment they’re going to make, most likely the biggest emotional investment, and to treat it otherwise is absolutely disrespectful.The same with local businesses.”

Opponents seized on Haynes’s statement, which many interpreted as validating the negative impact of the shelter.  One of our OJB commenters, April Allegro, left a scalding rebuke against Haynes and Mercy House, which would potentially manage the facility:

So. This is really all about location, since all of us want to help the homeless, just not at Kraermer Place….

Orange County Rescue Mission has got it right…all the way. Give them a call at the Tustin executive office at 800-663-3074.

They have three facilities, are run 100% from private donations, and they know where to put their facilities: At the old Tustin Army Barracks, at “the Ranch” in Temecula just for men, and a facility in Corona/Norco that is 100 beds, been there for 15 years, with multiple services, including physicians. Since they took this location over from the previous management, police say they have no problems with it.

Forget Mercy House. Larry Haynes has lost credibility when he wants so much to run the Kraemer location, if and when. It is not a good location, yet he wants to do it any way, and he was the first one to state at the BOS meeting that it WOULD hurt property values, and that is a big deal.

The right location is one with plenty of room to grow, where land is cheap. Make it a full services location, live in group homes to address specific problems, medical, rehab services, etc. Less expensive land and erect cement-sided buildings in one week. These people can be transported, processed and put right into the building for their specific needs/age group/gender.

(Emphasis added).

In a previous post, our contributor Ricardo Toro had asked Haynes for a clarification of what he meant in his statement, as he felt that he was being misquoted.  Ricardo has received Haynes’s explanation of the remark, which appears below:

Speaking as a board member of the Commission to End Homelessness, let me say that any representation of my being against the Year Round Emergency Shelter, or in any way portraying me as thinking that it is a bad idea, is just plain mistaken.  The Year Round Emergency Shelter is a key goal of the County’s plan to end homelessness, and a critical component to linking people living on the streets with permanent housing.

When I addressed the issue at the BOS meeting, I spoke of addressing the needs of homeless persons and the needs of the surrounding area as “competing virtues”, specifically not good guys vs. bad guys.  I also spoke of inaction on the matter, as in fact direct action against the needs of the homeless.  I very clearly stated that I was in support of the shelter, and that the operator, whoever it might be, would need to work with the surrounding community to support their interests as best as possible.  I stated that the concerns were reasonable, but I was clear in my support of the shelter, and that these concerns could be effectively addressed by a good operator.  I stated that good and reasonable people could work out these issues.

Saying that people’s concerns are understandable, and that work needs to be done, is not the same thing as being opposed to the project as a whole.  Taken in full context, to portray me as opposed to the shelter is simply not accurate.

Ricardo’s own position is expressed below:

Those of us residing near the proposed shelter at Kraemer have been concerned about the impact of a 200 beds facility. We felt left out from the beginning of this process and reached out to city officials and advocates. We needed to understand the need for a shelter, the reason to choose this odd location and the reluctance to incorporate the residents and business owners in the process.

We finally met one councilmember, James Vanderbilt.

Councilmember James Vanderbilt sent out the following follow up letter to interested constituents:

Dear Community Members:

I wanted to thank you again for coming to the meeting at the Downtown Community Center last month regarding 1000 N. Kraemer Place.  As you may know, the County of Orange has scheduled a community forum for this Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6 p.m. (details below).   I plan to attend as part of my effort to become fully aware of the impacts of this project.  Since we last met, I have also taken the opportunity to meet with Mr. Chris Vance and visit the Piano Megastore across the street from the proposed location.  I also took a tour of the Rio Vista neighborhoods with [two of your neighbors.]  I was involved in a meeting with Mayor Tom Tait to learn about the city’s effort to create an Anaheim Task Force to focus on all the homeless issues citizens have raised in the past few months. Lastly, I was able to review the past meetings of the County Board of Supervisors regarding the proposed Kramer location.

I am working hard to keep up to date and your input has been invaluable in helping me understand all the issues.  I hope to continue to stay aware of the latest developments and I certainly appreciate your involvement.   I trust that together we can find a solution that works best for the community.

Respectfully,

James Vanderbilt

Link to Community Forum:

https://cms.ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=46925

To the extent that there’s been a consensus among Orange Juice writers and regular commenters — not necessarily including or excluding Ricardo, who should speak for himself — this is consistent with what we’d like to see.  Cynthia Ward addressed this in a comment (which has been edited, primarily for clarity and typography):

This is going to sound nuts, but — why do we need a shelter?

Follow me for a minute: the plan that was presented to us by the Poverty Task Force back in April was for an intake or assessment center with an emergency shelter for people to have a place while going through the intake process.  Then they would be placed in housing or treatment or whatever was needed for their specific need.  While they were not supposed to use the model of clearing everyone out every morning like the Union Rescue Mission model, which we KNOW is a disaster, by the same token this would not be a long range stay program.  People would only be in their little “unit” for a few days until they were shifted to a housing unit of some kind.

The example we were given was for the Anaheim Family Justice Center, where a battered woman can come in and get all of the help she needs at a one stop shop, file a Police report for being attacked or a restraining order against abusive threats, get plugged in with social services like food stamps or medical care for kids or whatever, and from there they are quietly placed in a shelter type program like Sheepfold or into subsidized housing, whatever.

That has been a HUGE success, because until then the victims had to cobble together he;p from all these agencies and locations, often dragging terrified children along without money or transportation, and this gave one place to get help, with very kid friendly spaces instead of institution green walls in a series of impersonal offices. The women can even video tape their testimony against the attacker there with a court reporter etc. and when it is time for court they can “attend” by video there in the Center, while their attacker is not told which of several locations she may be at so she doesn’t have to be in the same building much less the same room and they cannot retailate by showing up there later.  It is an AMAZING program.

When I heard that I was all in.  That is when I got really hyped about the Karcher location — but then later than night Cristine Ridge told me Jordan Brandman had told her to put on the Council agenda to move the location to Kraemer.

If the model for Kraemer (or Karcher, or wherever this ends up) is the AFJC for intake/evaluation, and the “shelter” portion is temporary housing while transitioning into program space, we can eliminate the SHELTER portion of the process and build ONLY the intake center.

As we learned with AFJC, this can now go anywhere. We have this HUGE intake center in the heart of Anaheim, right  over where the Resort begins to transition into The Colony north of Ball and west of Anaheim Blvd. You have businesses on Ball to the south, Walnut Park to the east, apartments and houses north and west, and NOBODY is bitching, while the services are open to ALL women in the entire County we were not over-run by every woman looking for “free services” we don’t have women and children clustered on the sidewalk lined up for their “handouts” none of the negatives expected of a shelter happened at the AFJC.

Using that model WORKS. I do not believe that women and/or children sleep/stay at the center overnight, I think they are shifted to safe houses, motel vouchers, etc if no space is available in programs and then move them into shelter programs as space opens.

Let’s do the same with the homeless center.

Build the intake center, a series of offices that let all of the non profits AND County, State, etc. programs have office space that is coordinated and ONE STOP SHOP.  People in need call for an appointment — it’s IMPORTANT not to get people lined up on the sidewalk before doors open, or hanging around overnight — and they come in, get an evaluation, social workers can figure out the unique needs of each individual.  Then, while waiting to get into whatever program they need for drugs/alcohol or mental health assistance or whatever the underlying cause is, we give motel vouchers instead of housing them in the office/center.

I was reading an article about best practices in UTAH, need to find it and will send it to you, but they are moving AWAY from shelters and going straight from someone coming in, getting evaluation or “triage” and then plugged into permanent shelter if they are OK and working and just need a hand, or into a program. And for those that need a program that doesn’t have a bed yet they are giving motel vouchers.

From what I read, they are no longer building new shelters in Utah.  (Possibly just one part, but I think all of it.)  As the social worker interviewed explained, the shelters were getting in the way of helping people, because they often were a deterrent from those who needed to come in for help but didn’t want to deal with the negatives of shelters: bed bugs, lice, attacks and theft are high on the list of real or perceived fears.  So they have skipped the middle man — or, as she put it, “we had to burn the ships to keep from going back.”

Why don’t we work on that idea? I will bet if we worked with the Poverty Center people we could all put our heads together and create a PROPOSAL to the County, that sets up JUST the intake center with specific guidelines in place regarding intake by appointment, nobody hanging around, camping overnight etc and use motel vouchers for interim shelter instead of a shelter-shelter.

So is all well?  Well, no.  Matt Cunningham’s organization is gearing up for a big fight:

• URGENT! We Need A Strong Community Turnout At September 30 Forum on Kraemer Place Shelter
• Yard Signs Are Here!

We at OJB can’t help noting that the Kraemer Place facility in the “Center for Advanced Technology” is adjacent to a strip club, and that a call to “help the homeless in ways that will actually help” rings hollow unless those plans are articulated.  Be that as it may, Haynes’s clarification raises the possibility that the hordes of angry sign-wielding villagers coming to the Eastside Christian Church tomorrow at 5:30 will be aiming at the wrong target.

A mere “intake center” will not be a “200-bed facility.”  Use of vouchers for empty motel rooms, as Cynthia proposes, may eliminate the need for any such facility.  But the real notion at play here is the desire to “get the homeless the hell out of Orange County.”  And that’s the real problem to address.

The homeless have a right to travel: they don’t have to be relegated to Victorville or Norco or El Centro or Inyo County or wherever the next bright idea as a spot for exile might be.  There are good reasons — proximity of jobs, proximity of family, proximity of cooler weather, and many more — why they might want to be in OC, and like everyone else they have the right to travel here.  Arguably, they have the legal right to restroom facilities — the “right of necessity” — and if we believe in private property they even have a moral right to a place to keep and store their own belongings.  And, finally, they have a right to a place where they can sleep.  You can deny these rights if you want, but at some point, even if you jail them kidnap them to another distant community, you’re going to end up paying for it.

That’s why David Zenger’s suggestion of modular housing in a campsite along Carl Karcher drive makes sense.  As the homeless have made clear since their expulsion from La Palma Park so that it could go to the dogs, they are going to try to stick around — in the streets around the Colony neighborhoods and elsewhere, if they can’t be in parks.  So we still have the chance to do the decent thing and give them shelter and restroom access — if that’s the best that can be done — in that industrial area while the Kraemer facility is put to good, and benign, use on behalf of the homeless.