.
.
.
The centrally located Carl Karcher lot — near where the homeless already are!
[Part 1 of this essay appears here.]
Our local politicians are now much more aware of the homeless problem and they have received tremendous support at the council meetings. Whether this support has been mostly from homeless’ advocates, non-Anaheim residents or residents far from the proposed shelter, it does not matter in terms of defining sustainable, realistic solutions. The scope of the proposed shelter and its impact on both the homeless population and the surrounding communities are being irresponsibly downplayed. The two armory shelters current serving the homeless will close down; according to Larry Haynes, the executive director of Mercy House, last year the two armories served over 2,000 people for the first time ever.
As an Anaheim resident has already stated, “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?”
How many people will the Shelter accommodate? Is 200 beds enough? Are there enough parking spaces to accommodate some of the 2000 people who drive vehicles? Is OCTA going to add more bus services? The La Palma bus service has already a high ridership. Will families with children be included and if so will the Strip Club close down? What percentage needs mental services and how they will be incorporated into the community? Is an industrial area the adequate place for them? Will the homeless from Costa Mesa, HB, Santa Ana and other distant cities be forced to come to this center?
Spitzer’s proposal and the City Council support have created confusion and distress in my small neighborhood, and it is spreading to other neighborhoods in the radius of the proposed shelter, such as La Jolla in Placentia and Riverdale in Orange. The neighbors and business owners’ opposition at the council meetings has been minimal and overall sympathetic to the homeless, in comparison with reactions from other cities. It is not a question of these dissenting voices lacking noble feelings or compassion for the homelessness, as Ms. Murray implied in her speech. It is a matter of their recognizing that the burdens to be borne by a city of over 330,000 have been placed most greatly upon them and them alone, while those from more politically powerful areas bask in the glory of their “noble sacrifices.”
The proposal has brought the reality of homelessness close to home. Most neighbors I have talked to recognize that something needs to be done to shelter the homeless population, especially with the increasing extreme weather conditions we are experiencing. However, the stigma about the homeless runs deep, and they do not understand or accept the choice of the shelter location. One of the question is why the Carl Karcher site bounded by Harbor and Anaheim Blvds., and the 91 and Carl Karcher Dr. (which used to be Romneya), already purchased by the city and in a centralized location, was dismissed. (Did they figure out that there was too much money to be made there?)
They have legitimate concerns and they need to be heard and addressed. Mayor Tait and Councilman Vanderbilt need to take the leadership in addressing the concerns of the Rio Vista residents, and by doing so restoring some of their trust in the political process. The neighbors feel left out, betrayed by the people they voted in, and that this is Big Brother Government in action. Ms Murray needs to explain to the neighbors that the shelter is not too close to their homes, and if they still think is too close, she needs to explain to them that it is okay. A year ago or so a group of neighbors approached her about the river Cove trail extension from Lincoln to Glassell/Kraemer would be too close to their backyards.
The Rio Vista neighborhood was already feeling neglected as they have been asking for years for help to revitalize the run down strip shopping mall. There is an abandoned Ralph’s and the closest store to buy some groceries is a 7 Eleven. If the council intervenes in the market forces with the subsidies to Disney and hotel developers, why neighborhoods cannot get some kind of revitalization assistance? Especially, why not now, when it could mitigate any potential negative impact of the shelter?
A meeting needs to take place, and by then the neighbors may understand the outcome of the studies that show that homeless shelters increase property values , and that normal safety levels are maintained in the surrounding communities. They may then openly welcome and support a shelter, although hopefully one of a more modest size.
Related posts are in the underlined words above.
(Did they figure out that there was too much money to be made there?)
Yes. Either that or Karl’s Jr, raised Holy Hell. Or both.
On Civic center and Sycamore in Santa Ana, there’s the abandoned YMCA building where the homeless sleep around the doorways and store their possessions during the day. Two or three story building that would required some renovation and upgrades, but already centrally located to the where a large homeless population congregates around the BOS and other county offices. The central OC homeless population could be served in this facility rather than sending them to Anaheim.
We are Homeless avocates for Christ. And we have been going to the council meetings for months now and pushing not only just for shelters but safe zones like a park of their own since we have dog parks now where the homeless use to stay during the day.
We are also fighting for their bill of rights Amendment 4: The right of people to be secure in their person, house,papers, and effects, against unresasonable searches and zeizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upone probable cause, supported by oath of affrimation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now no shelters are open since the armory closed. Where’s the common sense we know having shelters and safe zones will keep the homeless out of peoples front yard, alleys and streets most of the time plus it will give them a place to wash up and dress. Most are homeless because they lost their homes, Woman that lost their husbands, Kids that runaway from an abusive home, disabled, veterans and the mentally handicapped.
Bad policies are making it worse for them all. It has made bad policing out of the police enforcing such policies that infringe on the homeless leagal right to have their belonging with them at parks. ; (
My view is that both the Kraemer site and the Karcher site should be devoted to serving the homeless, although in different ways. I trust that you would not object to that!
Another slick circular was delivered today via the Post Office. It repeats some of the questions we have been asking but with a twist of exacerbating fears and depicting the stereotype of the homeless in an exaggerated single manner, the vagrant and unkempt one. There is no need to neither romanticize nor demonize the homeless .It is a real problem and our elected officials’ insistence on a controversial approach is counterproductive. It is not a collaborative way to find solutions, and neither is the badly conceived advice given to the business’ owners funding the circular.
Alternatives solutions have been presented such as keeping the Karcher site as originally planned as a centrally located site, more accessible to the existing homeless population in Northern OC. Keeping the YWCA building as a shelter for the Central OC population, one in Costa Mesa. A different long term approach of temporary, small shelters throughout the county has also been mentioned, in conjunction with the Housing First approach successfully implemented in Utah. Anaheim itself has a success story through the Coming Home Anaheim program, in which 320 individuals have been moved off the streets. Mark Daniels has suggested at the council meetings that the Glover stadium be used as a temporary safe zone, and the ARTIC train station.
The website representing the business owners has interesting information though, about the costs and budget involved in setting up shelters:
“The Orange County Register reports the Board of Supervisors is budgeting $6.7 million for two year-round homeless shelters, “with $3.1 million coming from the current fiscal-year budget that has not been spent on the project.”
Some back-of-the-envelope math: the 1000 Kraemer Place building is priced at $4.25 million, of which the County is paying at least $3.25 million (assuming the property holds to the list price) — plus at least another $1.2 million to turn it into a 200-bed shelter. That doesn’t include operational costs and other expenses like police services (and who precisely shoulders that costs – the County, Anaheim, Fullerton? – is one of the many unanswered questions about this rushed project).
That leaves less a little less than $2.3 million for the other permanent homeless shelter the County is planning; and it may be even less – government projects almost always end up costing more, not less, than projected. Both the abortive Fullerton and Santa Ana sites cost much more than that just to acquire, let alone turn into shelters. Will there be sufficient resources for a second shelter, or will this planned 200-bed facility in Anaheim be Orange County’s sole permanent homeless shelter for the foreseeable future?
One cannot help but wonder: if the County does go through with putting a 200-bed, permanent homeless shelter in the middle of the Anaheim Canyon business district, will it truly devote sufficient resources to ensure the negative impacts on neighboring business and homes are truly, effectively and permanently mitigated, year-in and year-out?
More unanswered questions about a county government project that seems more concerned with acting quickly than acting prudently.”
You know, after reading about these high-density monstrosities being developed in so many areas that can’t support the traffic and need for more water and power, why not fill the new towers with homeless people? They don’t have cars, so no traffic congestion, they will have somewhere to be in the day and night, so less problems of running into them with the kids and dogs. And (sorry!) they use a lot less water than the usual residents! And the developers can salve their consciences and brag about their civic contributions to the cities!