.
.
.
Tomorrow’s vote of the OC Board of Supervisors on the purchase and sale agreement of the 1000 N. Kraemer property will pave the way for the proposed homeless shelter. The unanimous support of the Anaheim City Council will facilitate this vote. The BOS and the City Council must have considered that the public in general is opposed to the placement of homeless centers near their communities. Choosing an industrial site has not appeased the reluctance of the Canyon neighbors, and there is an emergent significant widespread opposition.
The closing of the armories must have added to the urgency of addressing the homeless situation, which must have prompted these elected officials to bypass the process of engaging the impacted neighborhoods, disregarding their concerns . The main spoke-person from the Council on this issue, Ms Murray, expressed the following last December:
“Any proposal from the county would need to include significant oversight from the city and substantial involvement from the neighborhoods that would be near any shelter,” Murray said. “The city has definitely been working in good faith in looking at various properties.”
The North OC Supervisors are the ones actively promoting the establishment of a shelter. It was Shawn Nelson who started the process and it was rejected by Fullerton. Then the Kraemer location was found, which is in Todd Spitzer’s district. Anaheim had already considered a more centralized location, but then this was brought up:
“The Karcher property was just a possible option, but I think there are probably better options out there with an existing facility that makes more financial sense,” Tait said.
The BOS and City Council are determined to establish a shelter, regardless of whether large permanent shelters are the best solutions or not. If the Canyon neighbors and business owners are going to carry an exceptional share of the reality of being close to this shelter, then the policy makers and homeless advocates must listen to our concerns.
They need to hear people like Chris Vance, owner of Piano Empire, whose business is right next to the proposed site. This is a summary of Chris’ presentation tomorrow:
“…I have been selling pianos since my early 20’s. It has taken me over 40 years to get to where I am now. What’s unique about my location and situation is I’m an onsite retail business owner, I work daily in the store, I own the building and land, and my store is at ground zero in relation to the proposed homeless center…. If the County of Orange purchases the property at 1000 N. Kraemer Place, my life will be forever changed. My financial well-being and future lay in the balance. I will lose millions of dollars. A heavy price for me to pay for a homeless shelter. Essentially…I will be the main “sacrificial lamb.” The other businesses and property owners around me will also be sacrificial lambs. We will all be impacted in a negative way… approximately 3 years ago I had to move from another location due to eminent domain. My transition to Anaheim was extremely difficult. At that time it was one of the hardest things I’d ever gone through…
What’s most frustrating for me…is that you, the board members (BOS), can decide my future. What I’m afraid of…is you’ll convince yourself that I’ll be okay. And, that the other business and property owners, will be okay too. What will happen to me if a homeless shelter opens across the street? Thinking positive, customers will still walk into my store, I will still sell pianos. But, my traffic flow will easily decline by 20% which will cause me to go bankrupt. As I previously mentioned, I’m 63 years old. I’d like to retire in approximately 5 years. My plan was to lease out my building. However, who’d want to lease out my building if it was next to a homeless shelter. If someone did, they’d want to pay a much lower monthly lease price. Another problem, what kind of business could I lease to? Re-zoning could change everything. When the time comes to sell the building, its value will be greatly diminished…. I believe your intentions are good, but focused in the wrong place. Please put yourself in my shoes. If you do, you’d find this situation to be a catastrophic event, in which you could lose everything you’ve worked for. It is also my belief that your board has already made ups it mind to buy this property. My goal and wish is to stop it. Until today, none of you knew me. Yet, you have the power to put my life into a tailspin. Please vote no to buying the Kraemer Place property…it is not the best location for the homeless anyway….
They need to hear the average resident, like one of my neighbors:
“Just yesterday, I was thinking about how we can help the homeless, not just put them in the equivalent to a 200 person Refugee Camp. At the same time, not encouraging their current life style via our actions. Unfortunately, I do not see a clear cut path that could be followed. Homeless people do not become homeless because of one experience. They take a journey that can last for years. It is not just because they lost their family, money, self-respect or motivation to succeed in life accomplishments. It is because of all of those things and societies failure to see what is happening to them and take proper corrective action. Thus, what can we do?
In general terms, start by rebuilding their self-respect. We cannot do that by rounding them all up, putting them in one isolated location and doling out care packages. All that will accomplish is to reinforce their low self-esteem. With caution and in baby steps we need to develop a program that changes the course of their journey. That includes, counseling, temporary housing, work, goal setting and reward. To get started, homeless individuals cannot be rounded up like cattle and moved to Mega Homeless Camps, like the one proposed in Anaheim. “
To find a practical solution we need a realistic view of the 
homeless, not a criminalized nor a romanticized one. We need to hear the positive efforts already being done by organizations like Coming Home Anaheim, an Interfaith-group that has moved more than 320 homeless neighbors off the streets. We need to hear whether the proposed shelter will be temporarily housing people while permanent homes are found, and/or it will be like the armories, where people line up every day. The BOS and the City Council need to reconsider the Kraemer location.
UPDATE: Video of BOS meeting.
Ricardo,
This needs to be built without delay.
We can’t afford another can kicking.
I agree. The Karcher site would be a good starting point.
*A very nice Japanese guy from Oxnard is dancing a gig. How much did this building cost the taxpayers and how much of that money could have been used for mobile medical and denistry and for supporting deserted Commercial Mall properties which could serve as temporary homeless shelters? Empty Warehouses? Tents on Parking lots? How much is this property again? The City Council of Miami collects $58 million dollars of dedicated homeless money a year and still can’t keep its homeless citizens with places to stay. This is another one of those…….hand me the band-aid solutions….to show the voters ….that we are doing something. Brutal…really. How many homeless of the 15,000 will this project serve – what 500?
A good reporting of the meeting and resolution:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/shelter-664060-county-supervisors.html
On Dec 10, 2014 Orange County Register published an article regarding a proposed homeless Shelter in Anaheim. It reported that the City Council would not move forward on a shelter location without plenty of community input. Additionally, the council said “Any proposal from the Orange County would need to include significant oversight from the city and substantial involvement from the neighborhoods that would be near any shelter.”
On April 7, 2015 the City Council authorized $500,000 expenditure to help the County purchase a Homeless Shelter site on Kraemer Place, located a ten minute walk from the nearest residential neighborhood. On April 16, 2015 the City held a Neighborhood Council meeting in that area. The city did not mention a word regarding the location of a County wide Homeless Shelter in our neighborhood.
As of today, the City Council has not responded to any inquires they have received from the neighborhood.
Why the silence you might ask? The only reasonable answer is that they want to make sure the location is set before they start the mandatory process of notifying the neighborhood. Does this sound like the big talk regarding “substantial involvement from neighborhoods” that the Council promised in December 2014? No, it lays the groundwork for a “done deal” proposition that will be given to the effected neighborhood for their information.
I wonder if the lack the response from the council members is the same excuse that Spitzer gave to Chris Vance at the BOS meeting: Spitzer thought that Chris was already under counsel advise, so he didn’t respond Chris phone calls.
I’m going to ask our OJB Good Gov’t experts their opinion : Is the city council lack of response due to some legal procedure?
From a political point of view, the cost to the council members/Spitzer proposing the shelter is minimal. Losing votes in our precincts will not affect their political careers. The Debussy piece played by the OJB editor below, may move some council members to answer to the neighbors.
The Voice of OC Podcast provides good background , although it does not elaborate on the ineffective outreach done in the neighborhoods of the proposed site.
Supervisor Todd Spitzer finally released a calendar of meetings with the community, through his district’s newsletter:
This week the Board of Supervisors approved a purchase and sale agreement for the purchase of property at 1000 N. Kraemer Place in Anaheim with a 5-0 vote. Community Forums and meetings will be structured to give residents, businesses and other interested stakeholders the opportunity to discuss potential uses for the site, including a year-round emergency shelter and multi-service center.
The property consists of a 24,384 square foot industrial warehouse building and approximately 13,824 square foot of office space that is situated on an approximate 1.87 acre parcel with 68 parking spaces. The building is currently occupied by a commercial air condition repair shop.
This vote is the first action in what will begin 90 days of due diligence investigations.
“I support multiple town hall discussions with the community about what, if any use, there might be,” said Chairman Todd Spitzer. Spitzer stated that Orange County will hold two community meetings in the evenings to talk about how the land and warehouse would be used. Spitzer also stated that he wants everyone’s voice to be heard.
The due diligence process includes procurement of a preliminary title report, appraisal, conducting any necessary California Environmental Quality Act reviews, Phase I environmental site assessment, land survey, structural and physical inspection, roof inspection, sewer line inspection, hazardous materials inspection, and safety inspection.
The next steps for this project will include a series of evening Community Forums and meetings. The community meetings currently proposed are identified below. Specific dates and times for the evening Community Forums and meetings will be announced through press releases and other methods such as direct mailings, city and county website postings and email distribution.
Community Meetings:
•Community Forum in Anaheim at either Vineyard Church or Eastside Christian Church in June 2015
•Community Forum in Fullerton at either EV Free Church or Grace Ministries Church in July 2015
•Anaheim East District Neighborhood Council meeting in July 2015
Elected official supporters at Tuesday’s meeting included Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray, Fullerton Council Members Jennifer Fitzgerald and Doug Chaffee and a representative of State Senator John Moorlach (R-Orange).
The Orange County Business Council and the Building Industry Association of Orange County have also voiced their support for a shelter at the Kraemer site.
Questions and comments from the public can be directed to 1000NKraemer@occr.ocgov.com or (714) 480-2998.
http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy3ts/newsletters/vol3issue15.htm
Spitzer’s Town Hall Meetings are designed to deceive the public who is not familiar with the process how his proposal has been implemented so far. “To talk about how the land and warehouse would be used” is dishonest as the use has already been pre-determined.
To hold meetings at Churches, with all due respect to these institutions, verges into the unethical. The faith-based and non-profit organizations have been the main supporters of his proposal. It also seems to cross the separation between Church and State. I am not going to bother asking our Good Gov’t experts to help clarifying this blurred line.
There is a need to establish shelter(s) but “the end justifies the means” approach should not justify policy making that alienates significant sections of our communities. Spitzer also stated that he wants everyone’s voice to be heard, but his main exponents of his proposal in the council, Ms Murray and Brandam, and the entire council have ignored the multiple questions raised by the neighbors .
The town hall meetings will be a perfunctory formality, a rubber stamping farce.
Mr. Toro,
In light of your continued findings regarding the Shelter for Homeless Citizens, it really is not going to impact the “Neighbors” as this property is a Commercial Zoned area and not a Residential Zone. Please check this latest article and understand that “Curing” the homeless is an ideal approach to raise the standard of living in Anaheim, which already has a great standing as a City. Please review the following: http://voiceofoc.org/2015/06/santana-meet-ocs-biggest-nimby-on-homelessness-county-supervisors/
Sincerely,
BlueDemon Campeon LUchador!
BlueDemon, the location is already having an impact on a large number of residents. They fear the homeless as the ones you describe in your comment below. There is no need to visit 6th Street in LA, we have the Santa Ana Civic Center. The magnitude of the shelter, and the stated purpose that it will also serve as a type of rescue mission reinforces the residents’ apprehension. The number of applicants may exceed the capacity of the shelter.
The virtue of Spitzer’s proposal is that it has renewed the discussion about homelessness. The problem is the inadequate solutions and terrible PR outreach. The VOC article you mention eloquently explains how the BOS has evaded reasonable solutions. There are several essays in this blog as well on this problem.
Mr. Toro,
The location is an Industrial which has not impact on the Residence. Keep in mind that the Goal is to have a Centralized Location for our Homeless population to promote and deter it further. In essence, the Homeless Shelter would be ideal to Anaheim and would centralize our homeless population whom you see at Parks, and sporadic places within our streets. Many are mentally ill and are detached from Reality and are in dire need of a Health Check up and some might need a boost to transition to Society and the workforce. Many might have incubating diseases which could become an epidemic do to lack of Health Check ups.
Please personally visit 6th Street in Los Angeles and get a personal view and experience of what can arise when the Homeless are ignored by Government and Society! Anaheim must not allow a “skid row” to harvest or to begin due to our local government failure to acknowledge and take proper course of action as this Project is Commencing and will do! Please review the following and I believe Honorable Todd Spitzer is a champion of the this and a great BOS MEmber!
http://cdx.xceligent.com/Attachments/558/7180558.pdf
BlueDemon Luchador Campeon
Mr. Blue Demon,
The impacts of a shelter can be varied depending upon what type of assistance will be offered at the site, and in this the County has failed miserably, as they have forgotten to inform the locals of the nature of services. If they are replacing the Armory with an Armory-type emergency bed shelter then yes there ARE likely to be impacts to the business owners who have rights just as surely as residents do. An Armory-style program fails to secure a reservation from night to night, forcing human beings to line up by a certain time to vie for a bed that may not be theirs tomorrow.
This is the cause of people flooding into an area and overwhelming the services offered when they fall short of the demand. If 500 people show up for 200 beds, you now have 300 people wandering around in need of a place to sleep, and now you have the very problem locals fear. Sadly while this gets someone out of a miserable weather situation for the night it does NOTHING to resolve the long-term issue of getting someone off the streets for good.
In Utah they are moving AWAY from the model of shelters at all, in a new focus which they call “burn the ships” because they know shelters work only for a very short term emergency. We need a SERVICE CENTER where “clients” come in for an intake process by appointment, which alleviates the pressure on the local neighborhood, and the shelter is a safe haven for a very short period while programs offered by both public and non-profit/charitable services can be pulled together in one place to meet the unique needs of each individual, addressing how they got to the streets and how to get them permanently off the streets.
If a genuine service center is the intent of the County for this site I say build it and build it NOW and I would offer my own next door property (the owner may object to my offering his bungalow courts but I would not mind living next to a service center) there is a very big difference and until the County reveals which they are creating they have flunked outreach 101. You don’t need a meeting for that, a flyer can outline the idea in bullet points. I understand the County pays professionals to communicate for them. I would like them tarred and feathered for the face plant done on this.
You share…”and some might need a boost to transition to Society and the workforce.” I challenge that those who are able to transition back into Society with a “boost” tend to do so, studies show on average the working poor able to pull it together with assistance after a crisis such as job loss or illness do so before getting sucked into the system and spend very little time on the streets. Those we see on the streets tend to be the neighbors unable to “transition to society and the workforce” even with a “boost” and will require longer term and sustained attention, such as subsidized housing with some sort of oversight and care management to maintain medication levels etc.
Where we will get the funding for this is anyone’s guess but until we do this a shelter is nothing more than a band aid. An Armory style building offering a “hot and a cot” while booting them onto the street in the morning to do it again tonight is frankly a filthy bandage infecting even the healthy surrounding tissue, and the County SHOULD know better. But then the County SHOULD know not to take action without significant efforts toward public information.
Homelessness used to be a social crisis, handled by charitable groups in addition to government programs. Those programs were eliminated or underfunded to the point of uselessness, and the charities have been overwhelmed. Today homelessness is a national HEALTH CRISIS (what else do you call it when it is now ROUTINE to deal with used toilet paper left when the parks have closed the restrooms for the night?) Homeless folks in a true shelter receiving services do not harm property values and may at times improve them if the area was overrun by homeless NOT in shelters previously, I posted studies here before if you want to read. We know it costs us many times more to ignore the homeless and have them use very high cost public services for emergencies that would be avoided by shelter,
…and yet…in Anaheim when Finance Director Debbie Moreno shared the staff’s recommendation for the “discretionary funds” available for one time projects, NO MENTION WAS MADE OF AID TO THE HOMELESS. NONE. Repair of streets etc was mentioned, and we certainly need this, but given a choice between fixing my sidewalk or helping the guy SLEEPING ON IT I will ask my elected officials to direct resources to the human beings not permitted to even SIT in the park, with minimal possessions, because they appear homeless and we can’t have that…
ENOUGH. No more bullshit, it is time to fix this, it is time to throw everything we have at this, and anyone in Anaheim elected office not willing to do that needs to not be in office.
If I may, Mrs. Ward, are you a business owner? Second, you are very intelligent in you points! I would strongly recommend that you address the BOS with the latter points you have highlighted.
I agree with the majority of your arguments but one must do great research and have factual figures rather then speculate. Also, the Business Model which is going to govern this Homeless Effort must be defined. Certainly not every common Joe has the power to regain momentum and perservere when an economic crisis arises. I would highly encourage you to open a Non Profit and Lobby against the Homeless Shelter if the findings are that it is a false premise to the goal in mind! I do not have the complete research on the total negotiations but I will stand firm and find that avoiding a “skidrow” is by far more constructive than one seeing the City diminish in standing and Social Order! Please review the photo which illustrates the Shelter proposed. I believe the surroundings are light industrial which I highly believe has no significant impact!
Great to explore this with you and your findings! You may call me “Joe”.
Bluedemon LUchador!
Mr Blue Joe Demon, your reading of Cynthia’s opinions is off the mark. I invite you to re-read them, including her essay on this issue:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2015/04/yes-in-my-back-yard-in-defense-of-a-homeless-shelter-at-the-karcher-site/
Joe Blue Demon person,
I am uncertain if you are saying there are no residential impacts as the area is industrial, or if you are saying that impacts to industrial should be dismissed in favor or avoiding residential impacts. I want to be sure we understand each other. Sadly there is no way to handle this out-of-control issue without impacts somewhere, the trick is to minimize UNNECESSARY impacts that so often come with poorly planned government projects that fail to follow best practices in favor of business as usual, or the wrong solution slapped onto the problem because that is what we could get funding for. I think if folks knew that all had been done to minimize the negative and research had been done to find the most effective solutions for the funding available, pretty much anyone I know (including my own family) would “take one for the team” and absorb a shelter in their own area. I could be wrong, but I don’t think those objecting are being unreasonable, they want answers, and should not have to attend a town hall spin session to get them. If a plan is in place it should be easy enough to communicate through a web page/email blast or door to door flyers. If Matt Cunningham is able to draft and distribute flyers on behalf of his clients drumming up hysteria not yet determined to be true, how did the County mis the chance to counter that with factual info on whether this is a service center or Armory type shelter? Because the County blew the opportunity to proactively educate the public, we now have angry homeowners AND business owners told NOTHING unless and until they attend a meeting, and the SOP for government action so far has taught them they are going to be “Delphi’ed” right into what government wants. http://www.vlrc.org/articles/110.html
No I am not a business owner in the area of the Kraemer shelter, my central Anaheim home/office sits directly on a “homeless highway” where those avoiding Police harassment wander back and forth between parks looking for anywhere to just sit and EXIST for a few hours. I was glad to hear the Karcher property (close to my home) would be used for the shelter, as it would have served the population that is ALREADY HERE, and I was frustrated to have the project diverted to Kraemer where it is unlikely to serve the population most in need. Despite common misperceptions, the homeless are NOT very mobile, it takes a great deal of effort to haul yourself and all your worldly possessions onto a bus, harder still if dealing with physical/health challenges, even if you can score a free bus pass from social service orgs. .
But anyone who thinks the homeless magically appear in great numbers for any freebie need only look at how many are in Maxwell Park being ticketed and forfeiting their possessions to APD for keeping them in public when a storage area is available behind La Palma Park. People remain in the area they are most comfortable or connected to, more so when in a vulnerable position like homelessness, which we did discuss in the posts that Ricardo was good enough to link to, I lacked the time to pull up the links earlier (thank you Mr. Toro.)
I agree when you say one must do research and not speculate. If you have research to share please post it here so that we may all learn together, as we have posted links we have found helpful.
Until the BoS provides us with their business plan and intent for the function of the site we are left with nothing BUT speculation, which is why both area residents and business owners are so understandably frustrated.
I had hoped to attend the BoS meeting, but it was then scheduled for the same morning as my own obligation to public service and I had to forfeit two different opportunities to weigh in on how government impacts day to day life in Anaheim. Besides, Todd Spitzer is unlikely to hear anything I have to say, that relationship goes way back and is not a healthy one. So I would be doing a disservice to the homeless by advocating for them with the BoS, In fact I could not get Mr. Chairman to sign on for a program to rescue puppies, butterflies, and unicorn orphans if he thought I wanted it.
Welcome to the discussion Mr. Blue Demon, please share any research you have come across that might enlighten us regarding best practices and potential impacts so that those who can attend meetings can share what has been learned.
Cynthia, thanks for rounding up the problems with Spitzer’s proposal. His response to Norberto compounds the questions, such as busing people to the Kraemer facility. (BTW Norberto and his VOC team once again show what journalism is all about, presenting the facts and confronting the players, especially those in power, to deal with the facts)
It is understandable that it is time to “stop kicking the can around and twiddling our thumbs “, but inadequate proposals do not make sense when sensible alternatives have existed for a long time. The process of engaging the impacted communities is important in a democratic society. The residents have been excluded from this process.
Regarding Cunningham’s participation in this issue. The website he is operating on behalf of the business owners BS4A BetterSolutions4Anaheim,
(which should be called B$4A: Better $$$ 4 for his Chamber of Commerce sponsored blog) has been dead for days. He must have been called to the carpet by the Pringles/Spitzers. BTW how is the relationship between these two power brokers?
We need one of these at La Palma Park, along with a plaque telling people where to send donations to help the homeless. This is not cheap, (probably cheaper than Kris Murray’s dog statue) but how do you keep walking and do nothing after seeing this?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/05/controversial-homeless-jesus-statue-looking-for-home-in-detroit/
Sounds good. It’s just a shame when an artist’s name is Schmalz.
Events in the Big Town to the North- (In case you missed it)
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-homeless-belongings-20150615-story.html
“85% of $100M homeless spending goes to LEO” – worse than irony.
The LAT has quite a few interesting articles on this subject. This one points out some solutions to the challenges presented by people living in vehicles.
“Some churches and temples in Los Angeles are looking into ways to offer overnight parking to small numbers of homeless people in vehicles, as some nonprofits already do in Santa Barbara.”
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-living-in-vehicles-20150512-story.html