.
.
.
Tomorrow night’s Anaheim City Council meeting (Tuesday April 7th) is almost certain to be one of the longest and most contentious on record, at least since July 2012, and I don’t want to even compare the environment that night for fear of a repeat. We have numerous issues on the Agenda that will bring out a variety of passionate crowds, and the powers that be are likely to load the Chambers with their own pro forma supporters, ensuring a packed house. In a sick version of déjà vu, Anaheim has also experienced additional officer-involved shootings since the last Council meetings, also certain to bring crowds to the Chambers.
I have been working all weekend to review the Agenda Items and offer background information and research from my files, so that those who do brave the crowds may be better informed. So watch this space for additional posts, as OJB covers the issues one by one.
What I cannot do is prepare for the crowds we KNOW are headed for City Hall tomorrow night, and I can only pray that the administration does a better job of expecting the mass of humanity than they did that hot evening in July 2012, when someone’s idea of “crowd control” skipped over planning for stanchions, public communication equipment, or other best practices we know to be used to corral crowds into an orderly system, permitting access to a public meeting they have the right to attend. Instead our grand and glorious law enforcement professionals called in the riot squads, who were present in the building prior to the start of the Council meeting in July 2012, and it seems the overtime-generating show of quasi-military force was the ONLY preparation taken by the “professionals” in charge. One can only hope we have learned our lessons and will do a better job this time. If the administration is still clueless or without resources, we can probably borrow a little something from the storage room of our famous neighbor, in a “public private partnership.”
I will take the Agenda items one at a time, so those reading may chose the issues important to them. Please let me know if we have missed anything, so OJB can fill in the blanks before tomorrow night. Call me selfish but we are in for a long night. If OJB can help answer a question then perhaps we can reduce the line of folks asking for information not yet provided by their own government (which we increasingly find ourselves doing) and/or perhaps we can elevate the information level of the discussion certain to take place at the dais by arming those who plan to speak with genuine fact-based arguments, and links for source materials.
Unlike some other blogs, we also welcome opposing views, because as iron sharpens iron, so a strongly held opposing view forces us to dig in deeper and research our own views to defend them-and at times abandon them to join the opposition when we discover we are mistaken. Respectful discussion is invited. Name calling is not needed, and if it degrades to that, OJB will be infinitely better at it, with Cantor, Zenger and Nelson backing up the snark, so let’s not even start.
ITEM 27: HOMELESS SHELTER
moving from Karcher Site to Canyon Business Center
by invitation of the Kleptocracy
Item 27 features a Staff Report I have had to re-read repeatedly in order to understand that both the City of Anaheim and at least one County Supervisor (Spitzer) aided by a Fullerton City Council member, really are serious about drafting official governmental policy rooted in absolute bold-faced bigotry against an entire class of American citizens, based on nothing but their economic status. Had this meeting been scheduled one week earlier I would expect Spitzer to jump out from behind the podium and shout, “April Fool’s!”
There is no question that Orange County has a problem with homelessness. Some claim the homeless are coming from other parts of the country because California is a good place to be homeless. The weather is nice and with all the liberals in California we feed them well. The truth is that for every person who comes to California to find themselves on the streets, most believed they had work, a home, and a network waiting for them here. When offered a bus ticket “home” to where they began, they gladly accept it, as homeless with family in a familiar place is preferable to homeless in a place entirely lacking in compassion, no matter how good he weather is, where rents are so unaffordable that one may never lift themselves by the bootstraps without assistance. To believe otherwise is to believe that the majority of the homeless population WANTS to be homeless. History tells us there has always been a very small percentage of the homeless population that enjoys the “free spirit” lifestyle. During the Depression they were called bums or hobos, and understandably avoided. It is mindboggling (and beneath the intelligence of most who promote this view) to believe that the dramatic increase of homeless citizens living on Orange County’s streets are driven by some inexplicable rise in a desire to live without the constraints of walls and a roof and rules set by society.
The increase in homelessness is based on simple math. Wages have not kept pace with inflation, housing costs have escalated even faster than general inflation factors, (especially in Orange County) and the safety net we like to believe is there for the “least of these” frankly does not exist. With families now spread geographically wide, someone dealing with a spouse who is mentally ill or physically disabled now means not having in-home relational-network help. This limits the ability of the able spouse to earn wages while acting as a caregiver, and both spouses end up on the streets-sometimes with children! Times have changed and we have not kept pace with those changes, to prevent what is quickly becoming one of the greatest tragedies in domestic social disasters.
Sadly, we justify doing nothing to aid the most vulnerable population in America today, by convincing ourselves they deserve to be on the streets, that they are criminals, drug addicts, and sexual predators unwilling to register their location with the online mapping programs, or that they have otherwise chosen to drop out of the system. I have news for you. Those people live among us NOW, very likely in a home near you. Possession of a Schlage stamped piece of metal on a key ring does not make one NOT a predator or felon, and drug addicts drive BMWs to their cushy office. Are we afraid of drunks and addicts and felons, or only afraid of the ones who are not successful at it? Have we established what percentage of the homeless population is in fact criminal? And how many of those criminal charges resulted from otherwise decent people being forced into criminal behavior by homelessness, such as the indecent exposure charge for someone forced to eliminate bodily functions in the public space of bushes for lack of a real toilet available to them? Where are the statistics before we jump to conclusions?
Those of us who were floored that the City would offer Arte Moreno deal points many considered INSANE based on a 13 page report written on sheets of marshmallow fluff must accept that the poorest of Anaheim’s poor are being denied the basic right of a place to simply BE and EXIST within our community with NO STUDY AT ALL. How could Anaheim’s homeless policy be even less substantiated than our policy on Angels Stadium?!
We refuse to consider a shelter in our area because we envision the please for funding by Skid Row rescue missions during the holidays, depicting packs of toothless filthy men lined up for their daily chow, amid the barracks type housing of cots and bunk beds lining the walls of a dormitory style warehouse of humanity.
No, none of us wants that in our neighborhood and I don’t think we are evil to say so. Ask the homeless and they will tell you they don’t particularly want to be there either. Yet nobody has checked to see what is being built, or who is running it, not even those complaining about its location.
WALK A MILE IN SOMEONE’S SHOES.
OR SPEND THE NIGHT IN THEIR SLEEPING BAG.
I have a challenge for anyone reading this who thinks another delay is no big deal, in order to “get it right”
Tonight, leave your doors unlocked. Your windows, too. Maybe even open them. Now go to bed. Go ahead. How much sleep are you going to get?
Now try it WITHOUT WALLS. (I hope you can hear me screaming through clenched teeth at this point.) How long does each and every dark, terrifying hour of that night seem to you NOW? Do you want to lock the doors and windows or do you want to be told you can’t yet, because we have not “gotten it right?”
YES, IN MY BACKYARD! (Yimby?) There is a t-shirt idea.
The Karcher property IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, I live within easy walking distance of the proposed Karcher site, certainly closer to it than the Rio Vista neighbors who have been worked into a frenzy by lack of information about the Kraemer property. I know the people who have previously expressed their fears are good people who want to retain the very little home equity remaining to them. The fearful residents are not heartless NIMBYs. For many of us our home equity is a large part of our investment for the future, having watched our 401K balances tank. We cannot afford something that could permanently and irreversibly destroy that financial stability we have fought so hard to retain in a down market. To advocate for a shelter at the Karcher site means putting on the line all of the sweat equity and hard work that homeowners put into our historic homes (you think YOU have a “fixer-upper”? You cannot imagine…)
And yet, I am writing to say that while I am likely to be burned in effigy by neighbors, I want to invite the County of Orange and the City of Anaheim to please ignore the grandstanding of Todd Spitzer, and build the shelter at the Karcher site.
If you read Cunningham’s blog they work hard to convince folks that “everyone” in the Colony hates Cynthia Ward anyway, so what do I have to lose? One may note that like our local government, the AnaheimBlog also fails to run actual academic studies. Does the opinion that “everyone in the Colony hates Cynthia Ward” include all of the historic districts or only the central Colony District? Did this opinion poll include the non-English speaking residents? Has it accounted for recently relocated residents who have not yet heard of me and might need additional outreach to ensure they too hate Cynthia Ward as all others do?
Not content to accept the lack of study from my own government, I went looking on my own, in addition to interviewing homeless advocates and the homeless themselves. And I want my neighborhood to be known for its architecture, its history, and its heart for humanity. I also want the INCREASED real estate values of getting homeless residents OFF THE STREETS where they are doing real damage to our resale values where they are now. Lack of a shelter does not mean no homeless people in our area, it means they remain “in residence” in the alley behind 7-11. How does our current “solution” help my property values?
Sadly there has been no visible effort by officials in my area, to assure us that housing prices DO NOT DROP with a homeless shelter, despite numerous studies showing that in some cases values even IMPROVE as we move from homeless people living on the streets to living in shelter, and transitioning to permanent housing!
http://furmancenter.org/files/FurmanCenterPolicyBriefonSupportiveHousing_LowRes.pdf
http://weeklypress.com/study-finds-homeless-shelters-improve-property-values-p444-1.htm
2008 Study, Updated 2013
and the most recent study from February 2015
“IT WILL COST TOO MUCH?”
The truth is that it costs us more in public dollars to leave the homeless on the streets than it does to house them.
That is why Utah has largely addressed their own homeless issue by simply HOUSING their poor. Expensive? Yes, and let’s face it, Utah is not known for using government funds for social programs. Yet somehow even Utah understands that there is a community wide civic responsibility to solving the issues because there is community wide impact resulting from the problem of people living on the streets that all of us would prefer to enjoy without tents or toilet paper. It’s kind of a no-brainer.
Despite available funding, a location in Fullerton was rejected, without environmental study to determine impacts. We blame “NIMBYs” but it is the job of civic leaders acting as “lead agency” (That would be the County in this case) to inform and educate those who may be impacted, and assure them of mitigation for negative impacts, when those negative impacts are proven by studies. The County had their hearts in the right place on this (thank you for trying Shawn) but then dropped the ball to follow through on the very real fears of their own constituents.
The City of Anaheim stepped up and purchased a site, one that frankly I was going to suggest as a shelter location when it hit the market, and Anaheim beat me to even sending an email to City Hall. It is close to the support services needed for a RESIDENTIAL use, as well as a commercial use, as this special designation is transitional in zoning requirements. Despite our constant attempts to convert warehouses for the use of human beings, a “from scratch” design can better meet the needs for the large dining room, small private counseling offices, private dorm-style spaces, of a transitional shelter, not a “rescue mission” as envisioned by too many of us in the absence of credible information. The Karcher site is close to transportation for those without it, and most of all, it is where a significant population of residents lacking homes are already attempting to survive.
As an interim solution the site could even be developed into a campsite that provides showers, toilets, secure storage for possessions, and a central location for social service programs to help get someone into a permanent program and off the streets, while offering a place to simply exist without harassment. Is this less desirable to both the homeless and the locals than the constant cycle of push and pull between residents, Police, and those being levied with fines they cannot afford for camping in a space not intended for that use, for lack of anywhere else to go?
Anaheim has done this once before. Yet we still have not learned.
Years ago the Diamond Street project was proposed by Redevelopment, with the intent to house homeless or those in danger of homelessness with at least one family member dealing with mental illness issues. In the absence of RDA outreach or credible information, the usual rumor mill ground up the project, aided in this case by the always fact-based (?!) “Colony email group.” Keep in mind this is a vehicle both Gail Eastman and Lucille Kring believed would be receptive to their notorious shared messages, Thank God for the riots so we didn’t have to vote…and “saved us a trial.”
The reality was this:
“This innovative residential community in Anaheim, co-developed by Jamboree Housing Corporation and H.O.M.E.S. (Helping Our Mentally Ill Experience Success), is a pioneering multifamily development that provides both housing and mental health supportive services for previously homeless individuals and their families. For these residents with persistent mental illness, permanent housing is critical to providing stability and ongoing mental health services. Diamond Apartment Homes will provide housing that allows families to remain together – and in some cases reunite them.”
Somehow “family member with mental health issues” morphed into sex offenders and predators, and the usual arguments spewed onto the microphone at the City Council meeting;
- Property values will drop.
- Crime will increase.
- Other communities will dump their homeless in the area, even when the shelter is full, and we will be overrun with the un-housed, unwashed humanity of the entire County.
- A permanent bureaucracy will be formed that will never die or release its death grip on our wallets.
Council Minutes: “Johanna Gullick Jamboree Housing Corporation spoke in support of Item No 6. To correct misinformation disseminated at the last Council meeting, she stated Jamboree held public and neighborhood meetings and offered tours of several similar developments. The comments and concerns received related to density whether or not the units were for families, alternative uses of the site, and points of contacts for any problems occurring on the site. She reported Jamboree had reduced the facility from 33 units to 25 units, increased the two bedroom units from four to ten, and eliminated all studio units. She emphasized resident screening was extensive, and sex offenders or those with violent or criminal backgrounds were prohibited from living on the site. In addition, there would be a property manager on site, as well as two caseworkers.
She added studies had shown that property values were not negatively impacted with the location of this type of resident facility, and she believed the developer had come up with a design in the spirit of Anaheim s historical district, and would continue to work with neighborhood residents.
Helen Cameron, Executive Director of Homes Inc., addressed the Jamboree project, remarking that a similar home had been located in Anaheim for 15 years and had never received a complaint from a neighbor. She pointed to the need for this type of program in the community and described the typical resident clientele.”
I cried during that meeting. I cried at the ignorance that had built to the point that Jamboree’s efforts to step in and educate residents where Redevelopment had failed was too little too late. The City Council of the time approved the project over local objections (and threats of recall) and while Curt Pringle’s finger-waggling admonitions from the dais were understandable, they would have been unneeded if his highly paid staff had simply done their jobs with adequate outreach.
Fast forward to today, and the Diamond project has been in place for years. Architecturally it is such a pleasing design that it is one of the few new construction projects I would live in. I cannot recall any locals speaking at City Council with “I told you so, these people turned out to be the menace we predicted.” I have met the residents of the program, they have attended a function at the location where I do volunteer work, and a much beloved friend of mine offers art classes in their community room, She has not yet been axe murdered, nor even threatened. Whaddya-know?
SO WHAT IS SPITZER DOING?
“That the City Council adopt a resolution evidencing its support and assistance for the County of Orange’s efforts to develop a year-round homeless emergency shelter and multi-service center at an industrial site in the Canyon Business Center.”
Do we all understand what we put into “Industrial” Zones? We place the land uses that we find undesirable, either the sight or smell or noise of some necessary but uncomfortable activity needs somewhere to go, but we don’t want it near our homes or office space. In short, “the homeless” represent a population of American citizens that should by all rights be classified as a protected class, as they are the most vulnerable population present in society today. Yet County Supervisor Todd Spitzer, Council member Jordan Brandman, Fullerton Council member (and Curt Pringle lobbying VP) Jennifer Fitzgerald, along with some City Staff, have equated HUMAN BEINGS in need of help as equivalent to a trash sorting facility to be placed on the outskirts of town.
We have ELECTED OFFICIALS aided by staff working on public funding, who are perfectly OK saying that it is acceptable to treat “those people” differently based entirely on economic status.
This video is typical of what happens every day in communities across Orange County, Is this the official policy we want put in place for our city?
No, you cannot even BE here among us.
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.
“I really think it might be ideal,” Spitzer added, urging his colleagues to support negotiations for the property, which is located at 1000 N. Kraemer Pl.
We keep predators and sex offenders away from homes, schools, churches. Is Spitzer making the unspoken claim that homeless people by definition are predators we must protect our homes from? There has been no mention of housing predators, or running a halfway house for “rehabilitated” sex offenders. The discussion on the table is housing the homeless. Since when do we assume that an entire population of American citizens is guilty of predatory behavior based solely on economic status? I hope Mr. Spitzer can hear me THROWING BREAKABLE OBJECTS IN FURY here at my home as I type this.
Todd Spitzer, as the self-proclaimed victims’ rights advocate, KNOWS that the shelter may not offer services to predators if it is within certain distance from homes, schools, churches, etc. Thus the most reliable system for ensuring that the shelter offers services to those poor souls who have fallen through the cracks of the system and need a hand, while keeping out, by a screening process, those most likely to do harm to others (and those LEAST LIKELY to show up for a shelter program where their identity will be confirmed) is to locate the shelter well within the zone that disallows the presence of predators, BY STATE LAW. In fact, by locating a shelter where Spitzer is pushing for one, we guarantee that Anaheim becomes the location where “hard to serve” populations will be shuttled, while the warm fuzzy shelters for families, butterflies, and puppies gets built in areas like Spitzer’s home town.
Nobody is pushing to serve predators, and the location selected by Anaheim would specifically prevent predators from receiving services, then we are not really protecting central Anaheim’s residents from the impacts of sex offenders and scumbags. And while Anaheim has failed miserably in providing information to their residents, the numerous studies conducted over many years of tracking same site data indicate that not only do shelters NOT tank property values, in many cases shelters IMPROVE THEM!
CRIMINALIZED FOR SIMPLY EXISTING AMONG US
Anaheim tells us our Police department is being trained to help the homeless, and I am sure many of our law enforcement professionals work very hard to do so. But there are SOME on the force who have been videotaped harassing the homeless, simply for being HOMELESS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENPmXb-4JwI
They are sitting in parks, minding their own business, not “camping” with a tent, not dropping trash, taking drugs, threatening anyone, and their belongings have been reduced to the equivalent that a young mother might bring to the park as support supplies for her brood of youngsters, with diapers and wipes and juice boxes etc. Yet the young mother is welcomed, the homeless person is hassled by Police, and their belongings TAKEN, at times stripping them of their medically necessary prescriptions, eyeglasses, and the last copy of treasured photos. In many cases these American citizens report never seeing their belongings again.
We have criminalized not only the illegal activities that are sometimes committed by the homeless, (and not homeless) we have criminalized homelessness itself. We have labeled an entire population of Americans as less than human who lack the basic right to even EXIST in our community. This is so prevalent that a County Supervisor wishes to move the population to an industrial park as though a homeless shelter is nothing more than a trash sorting facility!
Criminalizing the Homeless Community
There is a documented relationship between the appearance of criminalization of homelessness laws, and the increase of hate crimes or violent acts against homeless people. In order to prove this, Florida and California will be used as case studies. Historically, many cities in these two states have enacted severe anti-camping, anti-panhandling, and anti-food sharing laws, as well as other regulations that criminalize activities related with homelessness.
(You mean like Anaheim?)
A high number of cities that were mentioned in NCH’s periodic criminalization of homelessness reports, also have some of the most elevated numbers of incidents of hate crimes against homeless people. In fact, four of the ten meanest cities identified in ‘Homes Not Handcuffs’ were located in Florida and three were in California.3 The legislative scenario constitutes one of the factors that explains why these two states hold the highest amounts of bias-motivated crimes against homeless individuals, far surpassing their closest competitors.
One possible explanation for this is the message that criminalizing homelessness sends to the general public: “Homeless people do not matter and are not worthy of living in our city.” This message is blatant in the attitudes many cities have toward homeless people and can be used as an internal justification for attacking someone. 3 The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and The National Coalition for the Homeless. Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities. July 2009.
While we assume that all homeless are criminals seeking to victimize innocent homeowners, in actuality the crimes are committed AGAINST the homeless. 30% of those crimes committed were reported in California.
“Profile of Accused and Convicted Perpetrators”
In contrast to the victims, perpetrators of hate crimes against homeless individuals have been overwhelmingly young men, with the attacker being male 93 percent of the time. Additionally, in the past 15 years, 82 percent of the perpetrators were under the age of thirty. In 2013, 48 percent of the perpetrators were under the age of 20, the youngest being 13-years old, and 37 percent were between the ages of 20-and 29-years-old. With 85 percent of the perpetrators being under 30-years-old, it is clear that the perpetrators are continuing to act at young ages.”
Any concern for placing a shelter too close to residential neighborhoods should rightly be a fear of the homeless being too close to the teen and young adult males living in those homes who appear to commit the overwhelming majority of violence against their fellow human beings, whose only fault is to not have a house key dangling from a key chain.
“WE WILL CREATE A PERMANENT BUREAUCRACY THAT NEVER GOES AWAY?”
You mean like CalTrans running around punching holes in pavement to justify spending money on road repair? Uh…
If we someday manage to “cure” homelessness, will County staff protect their job security by making more people homeless? And if there are still homeless to serve, then there would still be a need for a program…kind of like repaving the streets we paved a few decades ago. Yes it is a never-ending battle but it is the cost of living in a civilized society. This becomes less likely to become the monolith of dysfunction if, as I believe is planned for this transitional shelter, the County contracts out to a non-profit rather than running it themselves. No I don’t want the folks who brought us Cal-Optima and the IT contracts to be in charge of someone’s need for a roof.
For a time Fullerton PD was dropping homeless folk off at La Palma Park, and this lasted as long as it took for Anaheim’s Chief to presumably explain to Fullerton’s Chief where his perfectly polished Size 12 military style boot was going to be placed should this continue. No, we will not become a dumping ground for the homeless.
SPEAKING OF PERMANENT BUREAUCRACY…
I need to share that I was told by a City staff department head prior to the media’s reporting that the shelter planned for the Karcher property would be moved to Kraemer Place. This department head saw nothing wrong with telling me that the plan was put forward by none other than Jordan Brandman, and would be on the April 7 agenda. This did not match reports from the Register and Voice of OC that claimed that Fullerton’s Jennifer Fitzgerald brought this issue forward to the County, and Todd Spitzer is championing the change in venue.
Of course Jordan Brandman is supposed to be subject to the same restrictions that his own actions placed upon Mayor Tom Tait on September 30, 2013, specifically that agenda items may only be placed on upcoming meeting schedules during Council Communications portions of public meetings.
This department head was not in any way attempting to hide from me, with full knowledge of who I am, that they had taken orders from Jordan Brandman for agenda items between meetings, as though this is usual and customary at City Hall. When we address Kris Murray “Taxpayer Disenfranchisement Act” we can also examine HER statement thanking City Attorney Houston for his “months” of work on something Murray only brought to the Council for recent discussion.
I can only hope that Mayor Tait takes the time to point blank ask staff how his colleagues demand items be placed on upcoming agendas between meetings, or expend staff time based on one single Council member’s personal preferences, when the Mayor who chairs the meetings may not be granted such a privilege.
And because we have this perfect storm of Jordan Brandman ordering City department heads to agendize an issue between meetings, aided by Jennifer Fitzgerald (Fullerton City Council AND VP at Curt Pringle and Associates, conveniently failing to identify which hat she is wearing today) and Todd Spitzer is heading the entire scheme, it is understandable that I am skeptical about any claims of public benefit, and instead rather believe that someone is making a buck behind the scenes, to the harm of the homeless now forced to wait while we screw around with yet another reset button. Am I paranoid? If it lobbies like a duck…
NO, THE COUNTY CANNOT FORCE THE ISSUE OF A NEW INNAPROPRIATE SITE:
BACK TO the RESOLUTION:
“… 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;”
Is that staff-speak for, “Todd says play nice and work with us or we are going to shove this thing down Anaheim’s gullet?” Well thankfully we have Resolution 2013-188 proposed by Council member Kris Murray on December 17, 2013:
December 17, 2013
RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CITY’S PLANNING PROCESS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Greg Garcia Deputy City Manager reported this resolution was to make clear to both the public as well as to government agencies that should there be a plan to acquire develop or dispose of property in Anaheim such plan must comply with the city s planning and zoning requirements particularly where the proposed use would result in environmental impacts in the city and use designations.
“…if a special district or other government agency seeks to lease, sell, or develop property within Anaheim’s city limits, then the special district or other government agency should be subject to the City’s planning process to ensure orderly and consistent development with the surrounding community and uses, to the extent permitted by law”
Well thank goodness Murray passed that Resolution during the “stop the power plant” crisis, I am sure she will be as forceful with Mr. Spitzer Tuesday night as she was with the OCWD. And if she isn’t then Jordan will have to get staff to put something on the next Agenda.
Wow, this is really a bombshell ! Eloquent description of the humanity and reality of the homelessness population.
I was wondering about the background of this resolution, and the rush to place it in the agenda without public input. As much as we try to avoid connecting all the problems in the city to the town’s lobbyist and his team, todos los caminos conducen a Roma…. When I saw that the fancily named ” Canyon Business Center” was somehow connected to Pringle, I knew that something was funny about this site.
Thanks Cynthia for providing this background information, and for your brave and innovative presentation of the merits of establishing shelters in non-industrial areas.
“The County had their hearts in the right place on this (thank you for trying Shawn) but then dropped the ball to follow through on the very real fears of their own constituents.”
Actually, this is not quite correct and I would be happy to elaborate.
Nelson, with the backing of County Counsel was quite willing to, in his precise words, “shove this up their ass” (his own Fullerton constituents’ collective ass, that is) using the theory of governmental agency “sovereignty.” I was there watching this. The council was in the dark, the FSD was in the dark, the neighborhood was in the dark, the other owners in the commercial park association were in the dark. He just chickened out when the chips were down.
Other than grandstanding to show Moorlach what HE could do, there was very little other motivation on the part of the Supervisor.
Almost forgot – he was also trying to ingratiate himself with the old Fullerton liberal crowd because he was afraid of a simultaneous challenge from one of them in 2014 along with a Pringle, Anaheim based candidate.
Thanks so much for speaking out to defend the poor and homeless . This is truly refreshing! My prayers are with you and hopefully we can chat again soon Cynthia. God bless u!
While it’s obvious you have a genuine passion for homeless people, the model of building a 200-bed shelter and resource center in any location is flawed. In many ways, a large shelter concept is based on an economy of scale and convenience for the providers of various services. It doesn’t put the needs of the homeless people first. Instead, it has the tendency to normalize the homeless condition, which is a disincentive to becoming productive members of society. This large-scale model begs questions such as:
• Does this model import more homeless people into Anaheim than are already here?
• Where do the homeless people go if the facility is filled beyond capacity?
• Where do the homeless people go during the daytime?
• What impact will the shelter have on businesses in close proximity?
• What impact will the shelter have on schools, youth centers, and parks in close proximity?
• Does the funding that comes with the large shelter model cover the direct costs, as well as the indirect costs experienced by nearby entities?
While it would be easy for me to adopt the “not in my backyard” mentality as the director for GOALS Academy, which is a stone’s throw away from the proposed site for the homeless shelter on W. Carl Karcher Way, my opposition is based on the model itself. A better model involves small and distributed centers for providing services to homeless people. For example, if each local religious institution was willing to adopt a small group of homeless people, help them develop a sense of purpose through work, and develop authentic relationships with them based on a hand up rather than a hand out, perhaps we can make a genuine difference. But, this would take a commitment from homeless advocates, primarily the religious community, to become directly involved on a consistent basis in their own backyards – their churches, synagogues, and mosques.
If no one steps forward to support this more personalized approach, then it would be better for this flawed model to be in a location that will not have as much of an impact on the La Palma Park area. After all, aren’t parks supposed to be family friendly? Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see a renaissance in an area that has been plagued with so many problems?
Ms. Schroeder, thank you for the points you made in regard to a single, big facility. All of the problems the government has encountered stems from the desire to pursue the monolithic approach. The “economies to scale” argument is weak because it overlooks two important things. First, as you astutely point out, the economy may be (may be!) realized by the provider but not necessarily reflect best efficacy for the homeless population as a whole; and second, the single site model necessarily involves huge up front acquisition and construction/remodeling costs which immediately affects any kind of “economy.” Then there is the concomitant problem of transportation to and from a non-central center that is not conveniently located for anybody.
I disagree about the Karcher site because it is convenient and already (in my opinion, mistakenly) acquired. I guess it’s a moot point now, anyhow.
Ms. Schroeder, we cannot agree more. Transitory movable feasts work best for all concerned. They work best for “separating the bad guys from the needy” and they work best for communities that do not want to be burdened with a endless trail of homelessness facing their kids and community on a daily basis… forever. The large single site concept works best for politicians that can point with pride to their dedication to helping the homeless….no matter how many are left out of the sanitized photo op. It also works for greedy land developers that get the maximum cash for the miniimum work and get endless Government support without having adequate oversight or annual responsibility. Appreciate your comments greatly.
I took a LOT of time working on this article, it’s been one of the most labor intensive and research intensive I have done in a long time. I posted links to credible academic studies that addressed these same issues, if I take the time to find it and post it, I would sure appreciate folks taking the time to read it. I will bet you will be comforted in your concerns, because I had the SAME concerns when I started looking into this.
As far as the size of the shelter, right now what is proposed and apparently funded is something larger than some want. I’m not sure why, since the more people we can help in a larger facility the more effective we become, but I will play along with the premise. So we can’t really reverse the plan, it appears headed for Kraemer and it appears to be a sizable facility. But even then it is not enough and we know it. There is STILL a significant homeless population at La Palma Park and the surrounding neighborhood, as I know too well as I am down the block on Lemon, where I live AND work and my family is here. This is not creating a new problem that would not exist without the shelter, our baseline is not “homeless in shelter” vs “no homeless” the baseline is homeless in shelter or homeless in my alley.
We need to offer people a place to simply exist and BE without harassment until resources become available. So I STILL propose that the Karcher site be made into an appropriate camping facility, one that is kept clean, with rules about fighting/drug use which is likely to need a non-profit running it with a trailer and onsite management, and some form of check-in to prevent predators from being housed in close proximity to GOALS and homes. Now we can’t do anything about predators wandering the streets, and that is something that will need to be addressed, but there is NO reason that a predator looking to stay under the radar is going to hang around outside of a shelter/safe zone camp they can’t and don’t want to be in, and we shouldn’t be harassing the physically disabled or mentally ill in the off chance they MIGHT be in the same category as predators. We have delayed the possible in pursuit of the perfect. Let’s go with what is possible while we fine tune into something better. How can it be WORSE than what we have NOW?
Or do we see entire segments of our population as “them’ or my favorite…“those people.”
If the building was going up on Karcher site, the land use issue is a no brainer. Would you put apartments there? Then little studio sized ones should not be objectionable as a land use. Would you put a mixed use facility there, like a hospital or hotel? It’s commercial/institutional and yet human beings will reside there for short periods while being plugged into permanent shelter, either to transition into rent-paying “productive members of society” (I am not touching that out of respect for the Schroeder family) or perhaps even to be permanently plugged into subsidy programs for assistance with housing, for those disabled souls unable to provide for themselves despite the best of their own intentions. Even if it “disincentivizes” them and “normalizes” the “homeless condition.” No, I really WILL NOT go there out of respect for the Schroeder family…
And if the location is appropriate for that type of land use with mixed use, and knowing the operators will be diligent in screening for compliance with laws that prevent predators from being near kids and churches etc. because they don’t want to blow their big chance and be shut down…then who the tenants are is none of our business. In fact we hear claims such as “I don’t want this built because homeless people will be in the neighborhood now” and I challenge you to replace “homeless” with any other identifier for our fellow human beings. Go ahead and say it out loud and tell me what YOU think it sounds like to say, “I don’t want that built because BLACK people will live here.” “Latinos?” We would NEVER…so why is singling out the economically disadvantaged acceptable?
We are a nation gone crazy over whether or not gays will be served pizza for their wedding (I got news for you, the otherwise conservative Republican Wards have a ton of gay friends and they are all WAY too classy to serve pizza for ANY entertainment they might host.) And yet activists on BOTH sides of the battle would not think twice about the pizza parlor owner turning away HOMELESS people even if they could pay for the pizza.
Shame on us. Now go read the damn article and click on the links and read the studies please, because I really, really don’t want to go there…
Cynthia
I do not defend the motivation of the supervisors to place human beings in or near a place of refuse. In fact your correct in the dehumanization of the need for adequate shelter. But I would say that the placement of the shelter is a response to continued community backlash of both just and unjust concerns. A facility needs to be built so that efforts and energy can be put towards peoples lives as apposed to fighting community battles.
I like the proposed site simply because of the closeness of several large local churches. Good ones at that, whom I know and trust. I believe it is the churches responsibility to serve and touch the homeless community. Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve.
Spitzer may have lost perspective in some of his comments after a two plus year battle looking for solutions only for them to be shot down. I do not write in objection to your concerns, but in hopes that we can pick up all the thrown objects and realize that it will never be a perfect program that will be proposed. High levels of compassion and understanding is needed on ever side of the issue.
I hope the churches reach out to the county & city or that it would be the other way round. joshua@cultivatinggrowth.org
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-Ab5NdP_w
“High levels of compassion and understanding is needed on ever side of the issue.”
Speaking up for the heartless, I would add that high levels of practicality and thoughtfulness are needed, too; otherwise one may feel real good about one’s self at the end of the day, and have been seen to be real active, and yet have accomplished very little.
Sptizer has not lost perspective. His perspective is always the same on every issue.
i think that it is great that you people want to have the homeless in your backyard, god bless you
Mike we would prefer the homeless in a SHELTER and eventually in permanent housing. That is the whole point, to keep them from having to sleep in my backyard, or back alley behind my back yard.
*Cynthia, we very much respect your dedication and passion on this issue. Sometimes however we must in all good consciousness….look outside of our myopic view. Hawaii, Utah…..Santa Barbara…..are all examples of folks thinking outside the box on the homeless issue. Sometimes these “best laid plans” wind up being not so successful. In Hawaii for example they tried to move folks out of the Ala Moana Park, across from the Tourist Mall and found these people strung out over every prestine beach…all the way to Kiena Point. They had a governor that wanted to build apartments for them, then tents with Andy Gumps which was moderately successful. In the end, Ala Moana Park is not AGAIN inhabited by more homeless. These folks have been shipped over from Chicago and other locations around the country. This is the very reason, we have suggested without fail….that temporary locations which can be occupied and closed down quickly are a better answer in the short term. It is also the reason we suggest that one size has never fit all homeless and these folks need to be segregated into the four categories we described. Then fund the emply strip malls and warehouse facilities, which can offer Andy Gumps, Mobile Medical and Dental and Mobile Food Operations. Script could be issued to be used only on the Mobile Food Operations. There are a million good ideas out there, but establishing Long Term Facilities for the Homeless, is basically trying to Institutionalize Homelessness. That should not be the long term goal or intent. 1% to 2% of all homeless are what we used to call Bums! Hobos! Alcoholic Near do wells! Those folks cannot be lumped in with Felons and Criminals, Single Moms and Dads with kids living in cars or worse and The Drug or Prescription Drug Addicted. Each of these needs to be with their own for their own safety and for the safety of the Public. The Chinese say it best: “The Journey of a thousand miles…..always takes a first step!” We simply suggest that buying buildings in not a legitimate or effective use of public funds for this endeavor.
OK let’s dispense with some common misperceptions, because clearly a problem with the vocabulary of homeless assistance is getting in the way.
SHELTER: hear this word and most people think ARMORY. Give folks a place to sleep at night and kick them out in the morning so they can hang around all day being visually unpleasing to the unfortunate homeowners and businesses in the area. It is my understanding that the shelter proposed by the County is not this type of “rescue mission” human warehouse. Instead this SHOULD (I believe) be a one-stop shop much like the Anaheim Family Justice Center. When a woman comes in for help there, she gets plugged in to a safe place to stay, off premises. In the case of the County shelter I believe the temporary beds are for the purpose of getting someone off the streets while another housing opportunity is found, but this is not the perpetuation of the cycle of off the street for the night, back on the sidewalk by day. I hope I have not been misinformed.
IMPACTS: if this was an Armory type cyclical band aid solution then yes there would likely be impacts, as people flood into the area at night hoping for a warm (or at least not miserably cold) place to sleep and are then disgorged back onto the streets. This would provide little (if any) oversight of predators coming and going. I get it. Again, this is not what I was told is proposed, and frankly it is the OPPOSITE of best practices known to those who have been aiding the homeless for the last decade or so.
SHELTER FIRST: The best practice which is KNOWN and PROVEN and which I hope someday we will have the guts to adopt, is to first and foremost get folks off the street. If this means into a temporary studio unit type facility for a very short term, it gets someone safe immediately while it is determined what their needs are. Once off the streets they are offered long-term housing, NOT in some human warehouse on the outskirts of town, the idea that we will build housing for them is nutty, outside of affordable units which have been the norm for ages. The answer used by UTAH (those bastions of uber-liberal leftist social programs, right?) is to give them housing vouchers and plug them in with an apartment, preferably in the neighborhood they have been living in, since the individual will have some sort of network and connections there. So the idea that we will shove all of our homeless into any one neighborhood is not factual, and if it is we need to fight it like Hell. “The homeless” are individuals coming from EVERY walk of life (some have had a significantly longer drop to hit bottom from the “C” level executive office) and they come from every possible neighborhood in the City, in every city in the County. Help them pay for housing in the area they are from (within reason, Newport Coast not being a subsidized option) and there is no “neighborhood impact” nor is there the stigma of living in “the projects” or the usual “don’t go building that high density affordable project in MY back yard” stuff.
Now OC is built out and there is very little reasonably priced rental housing, and we are going to have to get imaginative. But taking all of the money we currently blow on the after effects of someone hitting the streets, and it would take a FRACTION of that to pay for housing vouchers, and Utah ahs proven that in spades.
We talk about how inhumane it is to tell people to get out of the park when we can’t tell them where to go. The questions is where did they used to live (most in the immediate area) and how do we help them get back into that place or the rental equivalent one step below that taxpayers can afford to underwrite.
How will we pay for it? Gee, how are we already paying for the staff time for Police response (not to mention the staff time of Police proactively hitting the park to try hassling them to the point of leaving town) those who use emergency rooms as a medical clinic (back east they will huddle in ERs with “symptoms” to get out of the cold, that is one expensive shelter cost!)
http://mic.com/articles/108720/utah-s-radical-solution-to-fighting-homelessness-has-been-a-remarkable-success
We are already funding the cost of leaving the homeless on the streets, how about we take LESS of that money and put it to use getting the homeless off the streets and back into the apartment they just got kicked out of? It may take someone a while to find a job, but it will take them a LOT longer if they can’t get clean and iron a shirt and not show up for an interview with sniffled and hacking cough, and we will pay the escalated cost of that impact for longer with the result of diminished quality of life for those on the streets and those of us living around where they try to exist.
In 2005, Utah’s leaders asked themselves what all chronically homeless people have most in common, and found a strikingly obvious answer: the lack of a home. Their remedy was astoundingly simple: give homes to people without them.
“It’s just so rational,” Kerry Bate, the director of Salt Lake County’s housing authority, told Mic. “We really should’ve figured it out a long time ago, but we had some mental blocks in the way.”
Ten years ago, Utah realized it had about 2,000 people who were “chronically homeless” — adults who had been without a home for more than a year or homeless more than four times in three years. Even though the chronically homeless accounted for only 10% of the state’s total homeless population, homeless advocates realized they used about 50% of the state’s homeless services.
The majority of the homeless population are only homeless for a few days or weeks, and then they usually get back on their feet (they check out of state-funded beds, hospitals and clinics) and get on with their lives. They stop being a burden to the state. The chronically homeless usually have deeper problems – mental health issues, addictions and other challenges that prevent them from getting stable jobs and housing. That means they often end up shuffled between state-funded programs for years, wasting precious state resources in the process.
“The intentions [of previous programs] were good, but what that really did was take the most challenged people and put up these barriers,” Bate said. “It made it impossible to get out of this trap.”
The program: Now, instead of piling on state-run service after service – hospital visits, prison, drug treatments, shelter stays – the state just gives homeless people homes. The idea is that having a house makes everything else much easier.
“Getting people off the streets and get them into housing just works,” said Steve Berg, the vice president for programs and policy at the National Alliance to End Homelessness, in an interview with Mic. “Homelessness itself turns out to be a big barrier to all kinds of things, whether it is trying to get a job or trying to get an education or [trying to] stop a drug addiction.”
The program has worked in Utah, where the state has seen a 74% drop in chronic homelessness since 2005,according to the New Yorker.
*Cynthia, we do love the Utah project….but it is an order of magnitude in Orange County…. Our Homeless Problem ranges about 34,000 folks. This is why we need to be more definitive about who gets the housing, where and when. Just our thought of course.