.
.
.
In the wake of a recent settlement between the ACLU and the county, many questions remain unanswered. One in particular stands out: Just where do Orange County officials expect several hundred persons experiencing homelessness in the Santa Ana Riverbed to go next?
According to a press release on Saturday Feb. 18, 2017, “On February 23, 2017, the County will continue with the project and may enforce all existing trespassing laws.” Thus signalling that the county intends to continue the reckless policy of displacing homeless encampments there by use of force.
That’s all fine and dandy unless you are one of the many concerned citizens, myself included, that are left to wonder, “just where are these soon-to-be displaced homeless people supposed to go?”
One educated guess leads to two possible paths for the homeless to escape the wrath of the county. The two obvious choices for people living in the riverbed encampments is to head east or west into the “more quaint” neighborhoods of Anaheim and Orange.
If you are a resident of either Orange or Anaheim, it should be obvious to see the implications of the conduct of our county and the resulting negative impact that we must begin bracing ourselves for in the coming days and weeks.
I would like to ask Mayor Tait, “Do you still think that homelessness is mainly a county issue?”
The county purchased property at Kraemer Place more than two years ago specifically for the first-ever county homeless shelter. Other cities chipped in money for that shelter as well including Anaheim, which added $500,000 initially to the county coffers.
Many excuses have been made for why the facility has yet to be opened, giving just another example of the county’s refusal to address this issue, which is now a crisis thrown into the hands of cities like Orange and Anaheim.
One must ask, “Could the county have waited until the Kraemer Shelter be made operational thereby accommodating at least a large share of homeless people otherwise being displaced from the riverbed with nowhere else to go?”
I ask this to all of our leaders in our cities and the residents in these cities: “Does it appear that our county is in front of this homelessness crisis? And, if the BOS had any concern regarding fleeing homeless encampments along the riverbed, why would they not have a solution for where these people are to exist if not on the very outskirts of your neighborhoods?”
It doesn’t make sense, but it is consistent with the message that I have been conveying to our communities for some time: Stop relying on our county for solutions to homelessness and start looking for solutions within our communities. The county simply will not provide solutions because we have failed to make them accountable.
Yes, I know that you are going to say that the county gets all of the federal funding to deal with the homeless issues. For the most part that is true.
Our county has received more than $200M since 1996 and about $23.5M just last year alone. Do you think that if that money were spent in the right places, we would be seeing such significant increases in visible homelessness in our county?
During that same period of time, our cities have created laws that make being homeless a crime. Each year when your cities review the budget, police chiefs across the county will report to city councils that they must have more money for enforcing the laws or new gadgets like cameras in the parks, in order to combat homelessness.
Have any of you witnessed any positive affect of law enforcement to reducing visible homelessness by means other than displacing them from one place to another?
A great example of this comes straight from the mouth of Anaheim Police Chief Raul Quezada in his staff report regarding homelessness to Anaheim city council just a few weeks ago. The chief noted increases in police enforcement of a camping ordinance that was put into law and had been paying off since 2013 based on decreasing numbers of visibly homeless persons and police-related complaints against homeless violators in Anaheim parks since its inception.
Any one of you who have driven the southbound 57 freeway near Anaheim stadium can give testimony in the exponential increase of visibly homeless persons living along the Santa Ana River since 2013, at which time I believe there were no visible homeless encampments there, at least nothing near what we see today.
So, while Chief Quezada exults in his success, is there not enough evidence to show that excessive (and very expensive) law enforcement may correlate to the decline of visible homelessness on the streets of Anaheim and the increase during the same time at the riverbed?
So, once again homeless people are being displaced and they may be heading back from whence they came.
Congratulations to Orange and Anaheim! The steps that you took and the policies you created to rid your cities of visible homelessness in recent years resulted in the dispensation of homeless people to the riverbed. Out of your jurisdictions and into the hands of the county, whom you have trusted faitfully to deal with the problem for so long.
The question remaining is, how will cities like Anaheim and Orange handle the next obvious influx of homeless persons’ from the riverbed as they migrate back into areas where they have already previously been displaced?
The homeless are coming back to your communities, but this time amidst great contention.
The treatment of homeless persons here in Orange County is at an all-time low while their numbers have reached an all-time high. Legal experts from across the nation are flocking to Orange County armed with every order of law in defense of the homeless population here and your county knows this to be true.
Legal advocates are taking-up sides with the homeless more and more these days as evidenced in national news headlines. Litigation has proven successful in many landmark cases, but many cases result in some type of settlement and are often by disclosure being well-hidden from public speculation and far from the courts of public opinion. But, these settlements are many and very costly to municipalities.
Supportive and affordable housing are proven solutions to end homelessness. Putting a homeless person in their own apartment and providing them with financial empowerment instruction and life skills training costs less than incarceration or excessive visits to the emergency room.
What can you do as a citizen/taxpayer and resident of Anaheim or Orange?
You must begin by holding all levels of local government accountable for creating policies that are effective and proven to be successful. These “best-practices” for ending homelessness are working in other areas of the country and they are proven to save taxpayer money.
Ask your county and your city, what if any existing homeless policies include the implementation of affordable housing opportunities in comparison to the need for housing by homeless and those at-risk of becoming homeless.
Our communities should never rely on any branch of government entirely regarding any issue that so heavily impacts the quaility-of-life within the community itself.
Homelessness is a serious issue that requires a collaborative effort beginning with our own communities, all levels of government and all relevant stakeholders including business, education, etc. Hold your elected officials responsible and accountable. If significant results are not met under current policies, our policies should be reviewed and the merits of such policies should be performance-based.
To put it briefly, if any policy that costs taxpayers so much doesn’t produce visible results, find a policy that does work, it may even be less expensive.
In closing I implore all taxpaying citizens who are concerned that county policies at the riverbed may lead to an invasion of visibly homeless persons’ into their neighborhoods, to take immediate action.
The BOS will convene in a special session this coming Tuesday Feb. 21, 2017 at 9:30 am at the Hall of Administration and will meet again on Feb. 28, 2017 at 9:30 am as well. I recommend that you and your neighbors be there and be prepared to speak against the current homeless policies that are a failure and place your community at-risk of being left alone to deal with a homeless crisis that the county itself has created and chooses to ignore.
Send them to that dumb [expletive deleted] [identify deleted]’s house.
That goodie goodie [expletive deleted] wants to save the world, let [preposition deleted] do it in [preposition deleted] city.
Honestly I don’t care where they go. I suppose the desert might be a start. If they come into my neighborhood we’ll use existing law to force them out. Most of these people have chosen their lifestyle, a life of alcohol and drugs. They don’t belong in the riverbed or anywhere in orange county for that matter. Good riddance.
Joe
Wow! We don’t get a lot of pseudonymous posts from IP addresses registered in SWITZERLAND! In fact, this is the first one that I can recall.
Congratulations on taking such good care to hide your identity so that you can ensure that the homeless aren’t sent to YOUR neighborhood, Joe!
Mr. Houchen, I am so sorry to hear you were sick last week, this bug has been taking out many of us, and I hope you feel better now. The Anaheim Republican Assembly meeting was very interesting, I think about 130-150 people attended, by my rough head count. This is obviously an issue that many are concerned about and there are no easy answers. I am sorry that illness made us miss Mr. Houchen’s responses to what was said by Anaheim authorities. Perhaps we can exchange views here?
I especially need some help processing some things we were told at the ARA meeting, which repeats what we have heard in other presentations, and there is no way to say this without risking someone calling me a heartless bitch, but I have been called worse, so I want to put this out there for a discussion, and I trust we can be adults about the exchange of info.
We have heard repeatedly in both City of Anaheim and County reports that those at the riverbed are (mostly, obviously NO one story fits ALL) “services resistant” who have declined the assistance offered, for any number of reasons. I get it. In some cases, pets cannot be accommodated in shelters, and If the only way off the streets is to give up my dogs, you would find me under the overpass with my fur-kids, this is not even up for discussion. Obviously, we need to expand assistance to include the animals who have offered both companionship and protection to their human partners. In other cases, we have people with physical limitations who cannot use the floor mats at the armory, etc. So let’s be clear, I am not saying we have all the answers or that we have in any way met every need to bring the homeless in off the streets.
HOWEVER, (here she goes…)
1) I heard the proposal that we allow permanent campsites for those whose phobias keep them from coming indoors…and I have to say isn’t it far more compassion to treat the mental illness that prevents people from coming indoors? Permitting someone to remain on the street because their mental condition makes them perceive the are more “comfortable” there seems a cruel resolution, not to mention removing public space from public use when it has been converted to someone’s completely inappropriate “home.” How we get someone who doesn’t want to take their meds to take their meds is the debate of the ages, I know. But I cannot stomach the idea of simply claiming it is more “compassionate” to give someone a patch of dirt to camp on as a long term solution, as though human beings are stray cats to be tossed a meal in the morning and allowed to roam free to be prey to any number of dangers. Mr. Houchen, I am very interested in how you would address the “services resistant” mental health patients who are refusing help and yet present a clear impact to the community they remain in…this includes terrifying encounters with a few folks in my own neighborhood, encounters in which my husband and I truly believed we would be hurt. It has not been fun to live in an area targeted by the homeless as somehow desirable. I can be compassionate and still not want to have my ass kicked by a homeless guy off his meds who is convinced he is “protecting” the street I live on and won’t let me get into, or out of, my own home.
2) We have also been told by service providers that assistance is turned down by some because it is offered with an apartment in another city like Riverside, where it is cheaper to live, and the recipients don’t want to move, because they are not FROM Riverside, their home is Anaheim or wherever they may be. Now, this gets to me, and I guess I need someone to help me with it, hopefully without calling me names. But my kids are raising my only grandchild an hour and a half (or more when traffic is bad) away from us, BECAUSE IT IS WHERE THEY CAN AFFORD TO LIVE. When did living where we want to live become such a constitutional right that taxpayers are obligated to fund the gap between what one can afford and what one WANTS? Yes, I wholeheartedly approve of spending public funds on getting human beings off the streets, it is the only compassionate thing to do. Period. But demanding a long-term subsidy for housing in a market one desires but cannot afford is a bit cheeky at best. Hell, if that is how life works then the citizens of Victoria BC owe me a harbor view condo, perhaps around the Beacon Hill area? (to simplify I can just take a junior suite IN the Fairmont Empress, 4th floor Gold Level please.) That sounds callous, but how is it different for me to demand something I cannot afford to pay for while others are classified as victims because they are not provided a taxpayer funded home in the community of their choice? I am absolutely behind the public funding emergency services to help someone get back on their feet in an environment where they can support themselves, or for us to supply long term services for those who cannot support themselves based on physical or mental health limitations. But I have issues with providing long-term subsidies to those who can work and in some cases ARE working but have elected to remain in an area where the exchange of labor for pay does not equal the monetary exchange for rent.
I have read the “best practices” and I do believe in “housing first” as the cost of public services to respond to someone living on the streets and the extreme and costly issues that arise from their constant exposure to the elements and the danger of living without the security of a door to be locked are higher than for those of us blessed/fortunate/benefitting from dumb luck to be housed. In no way am I saying leave people on the streets. However, we MUST balance personal responsibility against compassion, and factor real life budget constraints as well. We CANNOT provide gap payments between the rent on an apartment and what someone brings in from low wage labor for every person who wants to live in Orange County. At some point, people need to move to where they can afford to live (as my own kid has done, and as my husband and I are considering as we look at what our retirement income will provide for us) I know it is hard to part with the comfort and familiarity of our home towns. It was not easy for our kids (married) to leave the city they had spent their lives in. But they put down new roots in their new home town, joined a church, signed up for bible study and book clubs and Mommy and Me groups, etc. and have made new friends, and those friendships are precious for their comfort in a new place. They also have the comfort of knowing they can sustain those friendships long term because they can AFFORD to put down roots where they are now.
No, someone should not be treated like dirt by the authorities for declining that offer, and their possessions should not be taken. But nobody is entitled to demand that assistance funded by the hard work of others be offered in the form of their choosing.
3) Lastly, I am told the items being taken can be REGAINED by following the directions given by the authorities who impounded the items, and I am told repeatedly that nearly nothing is being THROWN AWAY IN THE TRASH as is claimed by advocates of the homeless. Can anyone offer a FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT of going to get their property returned and finding it was ALL thrown away? Not anecdotal “I heard this on the streets” but actual first person witness stories that confirm law enforcement is throwing possessions in the trash and then lying and saying they are in storage? I would like primary source info on this, please.
Again, I am looking for a reasoned debate, which could include statements that law enforcement misinformed me, nobody is being offered help, and the world sucks. But at least THAT would clear some misconceptions, which is better than the confusing place I am in now.
Before touting this whole “housing first” myth, we should examine it closely over time. My expectations are that the results will be mixed.
Thats not to say it is a horrible idea, just that its unproven over any significant period of time.
Thank you Cynthia for your response to my article. You have asked some very good questions and hopefully I can provide you with answers that both inform and educate you and others like yourself that are willing to understand, or at least try to understand the homeless problem here in Orange County.
The knowledge that I share in my message to our communities is based on research and from personal experience accumulated during a time when I was homeless here in Orange County myself.
I would like for people to understand that I pursue solutions for ending homelessness that benefit persons’ experiencing homelessness and I am also equally commited to solutions that benefit the communities that have been impacted by homelessness.
I deeply regret missing the opportunity to speak before the ARA recently. The message I had planned to convey to the ARA is the same message that I continue to bring forth into every discussion that I participate in regarding homelessness here in our county and our cities.
I want to make a couple of points regarding homeless people and their pets. At first I thought it was strange that some would rather live outdoors with their pet opposed to living indoors without them. Personally, I would choose to live indoors, so long as my pet could be adopted by another homeless person deserving of my confidence that they would take proper care of the critter. I would also insist that it would be compatible that I be allowed to visit occasionally.
You would be amazed however, to witness some very incredible transformations of homeless people after they have established a bond with an animal. I have seen this in so many cases that I am convinced that mental health experts need to look closer at the possibilities of using service pets for more practical and therapeutic purposes to treat certain homeless related mental conditions.
It’s wonderful to watch this happen to people that have suffered for years for lack of a caring relationship and to see them regain their willingness to survive rather than die. Based on my experiences pets are helpful in some cases for homeless people. I am seeing that there is some response to this that may allow more homeless people to be housed with their pets.
There are some old-timers that have spent many years homeless as part of a group or clicque of other homeless guys as a sort of an extended family. They are very loyal and supportive of one another. They are also sometimes resistant to help or may even claim that they don’t want a place to live. Perhaps the idea of living seperated from people that they are familiar with makes them uncomfortable with the idea or perhaps they feel that to accept housing might be disloyal to their buddies.
Please understand that people who have been homeless for many years have probably experienced false hope followed by disappointment many times over. The friendships built in some of these tight-knit cliques are often more reliable than other relationships in their pasts.
It’s interesting to watch when just one member of a clique gets into housing and returns to the favorite spot to visit his friends and maybe even invites them over to his place for a bar-b-que or to watch a ball game. I have seen how their attitudes change once they get a taste of life lived indoors and begin to imagine what life would look like for them living indoors. Once other guys are convinced that they won’t have to give up their friends to enjoy housing it’s only a matter of time until each accepts the idea of a new life in housing and a happier and healthier life.
The thing that concerns me most is that the few stories of homeless people resisting help are outnumbered by stories echoed by people who use this as an excuse not to help homeless people at all. Anyone who has spent as much time with homeless people as I have, will agree with me on this issue.
I have not personally seen or heard of any homeless people being offered supportive housing opportunities outside of county borders and I’m not sure if federal funds can be used to do that. I do know that there are only four housing authorities in our county and they are not accepting applications for some time now.
I have, for some time now, been suggesting homeless persons’ apply for section 8 vouchers in other municipalities across the state that currently are accepting applications and do not have the incredibly long waiting lists like we have here in OC. This really is one of the most difficult places to find affordable housing anywhere especially for those people experiencing homelessness, I just want them to know that there are other options and re-location is one of them.
I like the idea that you have taken time to research the housing first initiative and best-practices used in successful collaboratives that are making progress by reducing the numbers of visibly homeless people elsewhere in the country. It is an example to others in our communities to become more involved in this discussion and engage themselves as part of the solution process. The issue of homelessness is far too important to leave in the hands of our elected officials entirely. They can’t do it and they won’t without support from the public.
Your concerns regarding costs and funding gaps related to providing affordable housing solutions for the homeless are understandable and shared by others in the community. I have some ideas that I plan to reveal in upcoming Orange Juice Blog publishings, but I am really interested in hearing more from members from our communities and perhaps forming coalitions that bring homeless stakeholders together specifically to find workable solutions that least impact our taxpayers and successfully reduce visible homelessness.
On the issue regarding the confiscation of homeless property by county employees at the riverbed. I am aware of one person that apparently tried to locate the the facility where such property could be claimed, but could not find the location using the same instructions given to some of the folks that had personal property confiscated at the riverbed.
I’m not sure if this is entirely true or not and I am uncertain why the county would provide false information to people trying to reclaim their only possessions. I will say based on my experience, the county and cities do not make the process of claiming property easy for homeless people to do.
Usually the pick-up location is across town and too far to expect someone to travel to and then return with their possessions on foot, so they often seek help from someone to provide transportation for them.
I’ve seen where appointments had to be made prior to claiming property and the time-frame when they are able to make a claim may be only one hour during the entire week. And I have heard that property was stored unprotected from the elements and not accurately catalogued making it difficult to find property and in many cases not finding some property at all.
Otherwise, I can’t speculate on anything regarding the confiscation of personal property of homeless people by county employees during this most recent action conducted at the riverbed.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my answers to your questions. I hope that I was able to provide the information that you wanted to hear and I hope to have further conversation with you again in the near future.