.
.
.
David Carter, David Doan.
“MOLASSES PACE” was the apt phrase Judge Carter used Friday to describe the progress County and city leaders have been making in sheltering OC’s homeless since February’s Riverbed Eviction, and we homeless advocates could not agree more. In his constant attempts to spur them to more urgency, he emphasized the coming cold and rainy season, as well as resolving the issues before election time. (I think coming council elections have driven both bitterly partisan Irvine and bitterly partisan Costa Mesa to paralysis, as candidates use homelessphobia against each other.)
Hovering like a specter over this hearing was the recent 9th-circuit ruling Martin v Boise, which as Carter repeatedly emphasized, “makes Jones the law of the land” – Jones being an LA case which held that governments may not arrest, ticket, or otherwise criminalize people for sleeping in public if there is no other place available for them to sleep. As the court nicely put it, you can’t criminalize folks sleeping on public property “on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”
We advocates had been impatiently waiting for Carter to make good on his threat of a TRO (temporary restraining order) on recalcitrant towns that refuse to provide shelter beds, a TRO preventing them from enforcing their own anti-camping ordinances until they comply. Why has he still not done so? Turns out none of our attorneys have requested a TRO…. apparently because that would likely result in endless unaffordable litigation from cities saying “Fine, then we won’t comply at all.”
Except… doesn’t it seem like such a TRO should be unnecessary and redundant now in the wake of Boise, Boise which Carter repeatedly emphasized “is now the law of the land?” As we’ll see in the next section, the defendant towns have all promised (with a bit more firmness and detail than before) the required shelter beds … but not until 30-90 days from now, if all even goes well! So it would seem Boise/Jones should be in effect in those towns until at least that time – Anaheim and Santa Ana cops for example should not be able to prevent folks from sleeping in public until the promised shelters are completed.
Pero, it turns out to be a big Boise-shaped Rorschach test – everyone at court (everyone who SHOULD be knowledgeable) had a different take on how Boise affected their town. For example, Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait agreed with my take: “Obviously we can’t enforce our ordinance until we have these shelter beds completed.” *
Whereas his colleague Anaheim spokesman Mike Lyster firmly disagreed: “This doesn’t change anything for us, because our camping ordinance was always in compliance with Jones. We never criminalized people simply for being homeless but for other infringements – park curfews, trespassing, blocking sidewalks, putting up TENTS or other semi-permanent structures that violate our camping ordinance.”
*[UPDATE: Mayor Tait calls to tell me I misunderstood what he said – we can enforce the ordinance “as long as there are beds available.” Except … there AREN’T. Not for a while anyway. Many homeless, few to no beds. So, I don’t understand except this is obviously a very delicate and semantic political issue. But the Mayor of OC’s biggest city is NOT saying we “can’t enforce the ordinance.” Carry on…]
And even on the street, the police all seem to have different ideas of what the shifting legal terrain means, some still enforcing the camping ordinance, some saying people can have tents now. As the weather gets colder in a few months, is the man gonna tell us we can sleep outside but we have to freeze? I think we have to (as Santa Cruz is now) at least have our City Attorney give a clear ruling on what Jones and Boise means for Anaheim’s camping ordinance, so we can either argue against that, or have him give clear instructions to the police force.
It’s a good thing, as always, that we have eyes and ears out there, thanks to Lou Noble, Josh Collins, Tim Houchen, and others.
The Cities Promise Shelters
So. On a separate track from the long-term quest for “permanent supportive housing” (a quest which should be vastly aided now by Sharon Quirk-Silva’s AB 448 for an OC Housing Trust Fund, signed by the Governor a couple days ago) Carter had required each city involved in the suit to come up with a certain number of emergency shelter beds. And the number of beds he required of each city was SIXTY PERCENT of the homeless population of that town, as counted in the latest “Point-in-time count.” Why 60%? I guess he was trying to keep expectations reasonable; plus there ARE homeless that will still refuse shelter … but that 60% is one other factor that suggests Boise/Jones could be in effect indefinitely.
On Friday each Mayor or City Manager strode up to the podium to boast of their progress and how they had “settled” or “were settling” with the advocate plaintiffs:
ANAHEIM, which already hosts 200 beds at “Bridges at Kraemer,” promised several hundred more:
- A 400-bed comprehensive “Center of Hope” which’ll take a while, but pending that a 200-bed temporary emergency center within 90 days – both of these thanks to my good friends at the
Salvation Army, and both to be located in their vast lot on the south end of their Lewis Street Adult Rehabilitation Center (pic below.) No, sobriety and religion will not be required in this new site – it’s a “wet” one – and this makes my buddies in Sallie leadership pretty nervous, having it so close to the fabled ARC, but they emphasize that one of the Sallie’s “directives” for 150 years has been to help the homeless however they can. And when the permanent site is completed in a couple years (that’s the 400 beds) it’ll have “wet” facilities, sober facilities, and mentally ill facilities – everything Anaheim needs. - And then there’s the “Life Rebuilding Center” project of celebrated bundle of energy Bill Taormina, planned for one of his buildings up near the Hills – he had hoped to build a second story for 150-200 beds but it looks like it’ll be 75 as currently planned. Still, what band of NIMBYs can march around chanting “No Life Rebuilding Center!”? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
SANTA ANA, home of the notorious 200-bed Courtyard and storied dumping ground for the whole County’s homeless, promised…
- A huge 600-bed shelter that’s been planned off Warner and Fairview, partly to enable emptying out the not-fit-for-human-habitation Courtyard, which has been under fire for reasons both humane and Nimboid. There’d been some concern that the property owner here was having second thoughts and that this was because he didn’t want a homeless shelter there … but it turns out that he’s an idealist like Taormina and he just wants it to be as GOOD of a homeless shelter as possible. But this place probably won’t be ready for 18-24 months so –
- Don’t worry, in the meantime Santa Ana has planned two “interim” places of 200 and 50 beds, to be ready in THIRTY DAYS. That’s OCTOBER 7. Mayor Pulido took the opportunity to taunt the other Mayors present and dare THEM to get something done in thirty days.
- Santa Ana’s Deputy Police Chief made sure to let Carter know that his town is still receiving lots of “unscheduled guests” – by which he means, homeless individuals dumped into Santa Ana by police forces of beach towns and the South County.
ORANGE and the NORTH COUNTY SPA. Orange’s City Manager spoke, mostly not about his town specifically, but as the spokesman for a group of City Managers from the “North SPA (Service Provider Area)” which includes all the towns north of the 22 – that’s 13 towns excluding Anaheim which is doing its own thing, thank you. The North SPA’s goal is 425-450 beds, and they see it a-coming in the very near future, with one site in escrow and one more in discussions with “a very willing seller.”
COSTA MESA. Ah, Costa Mesa. Their City Manager started by saying CM has 103 homeless people, so their responsibility is 60% of that or 62 beds. Wait – Costa Mesa 103 homeless? I think I saw them all last time I was there.
- Costa Mesa, with difficulty, has agreed to provide a 12-bed Crisis Stabilization Unit, somewhere, for any homeless in the county who are dangerously, violently, mentally ill.
- They’ve also agreed to – are you doing the math, Your Honor? – find a location somewhere for FIFTY BEDS, but don’t know where yet. The problem is, yes, with the Council agreeing on anything. Which does not surprise this author – in the bitterly partisan race afoot there, Foley and Stephens seem terrified to do anything positive on this, as whether they do or not, the Righeimer/Mansoor crowd throws charges of homeless-coddling at them like monkey dung.
- Elephant in room: EVERYBODY wants to use the soon-closing Fairview Developmental Center to help with the crisis somehow – everybody except Costa Mesa NIMBYs and the politicians who fear them. At the last Carterpalooza the Judge instructed CM to contact the Governor for permission and assistance with making this happen. CM’s CM reports that they DID reach out to Jerry Brown (a quest, these days, akin to reaching Kafka’s Castle) and the Gov’s office assigned a Health and Human Services secretary to contact the town, who allegedly told the town that there are legal restrictions against mixing the homeless population with the mentally ill, so no dice. I don’t know … do you believe that really happened? I’m having trouble with it.
Nobody from the South County showed up, and boy are they in hot water!
SQS & the County
I think Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva is mad at me over something I wrote, but she sure is one of the hardest-working public servants out there, and almost everything she does is good. On Friday she began by justifiably touting her AB 448 OC Housing Trust bill which had just passed and was soon to be signed by the Governor.
But mostly she talked about something she’s been raising the alarm on for a while – the fact that OC has been in grave danger of losing $250 million of Prop 63 mental health money which the BOS has neglected to use for years. Other legislators have noticed this money going to waste in OC and a few other counties, and have been trying to pass legislation (AB 2843) to re-appropriate all this money into the general fund. Sharon has been working valiantly speaking out against AB 2843 and lobbying colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against it, with success SO far.
Granted, Prop 63 money is a challenge to spend because it has so many strings and regulations attached. But back here in the OC, Sharon met with CEO Frank Kim and BOS chairman Andrew Do to impress upon them how urgent it is to spend this money – on something related to both homelessness and mental health – before it vanishes for good.
Later when Chairman Do spoke, to give Carter a progress report from the County, he lavished praise on Sharon for all the time she’s spent helping the OC on this issue, even “camping out in front of the Governor’s office.” I later asked Andrew if she literally did that, it sounded pretty picturesque like something one of us protesters would do. But he laughed and said, “No, I just meant she was there all the time bugging him.”
Segueing into Do’s County progress report – he boasted of:
- Building a “system of care” with not just shelters but services.
- Finishing the second hundred beds of Bridges at Kraemer.
- Established a new commission for ending homelessness
- $5 million in contracts with service providers like CityNet and WisePlace.
- Consolidating a data sharing system.
- Getting a $20 million CalOptima grant for recuperative care.
- Transitioning 550 people in the last two years to Permanent Supportive Housing.
Treat each of those items with the skepticism or credulity they deserve. But Judge Carter wants the County to provide temporary shelter beds as Anaheim and Santa Ana are doing – particularly in the NIMBY South County where they “seem to think they’re outside of my jurisdiction.” Carter really likes Do – they go back many years to when Do was a prosecutor, and Carter repeatedly tells him, “I trust YOU.” The obvious implication being that he DOESN’T trust Supervisors Spitzer, Bartlett and Steel, who notoriously tanked last March’s agreement to put temporary tent shelters in Irvine, Huntington Beach and Laguna Niguel.
As I left the hearing for a gig, Carter had just ordered the County to get together with plaintiffs council and find some sites in the South County. Taking the elevator down with attorneys from both sides, I opined that the original site in Irvine’s Great Park, already zoned SB2, should be forced upon the spoiled dysfunctional City of Beige. “Yes,” said one attorney, “but we also need one farther south.” “Well, there are a lot of homeless in San Clemente,” I suggested. “Yup,” said another attorney, “there or San Juan Capistrano.”
***
So there you have it, that’s all I know. The Riverbed folks should never have been evicted until all these shelter beds were available. Now they’re back all over your streets again, and dying – at least they had a working community and support network on the SART. Ideally they should be allowed to stay there again, in tents, with sufficient porta-potties, a few security officers, and a one-to-one needle exchange program, until the shelters are completed. But that’s not gonna happen.
Two days before this Carterpalooza, David Doan died, victim of a stroke as he was evicted from the Baymont Motel and forced into the Courtyard, his pleas to be taken to the hospital ignored. Yeah I know, the OC homeless die at a rate of 3-4 a week. But David was particularly well-known and beloved, someone who used to fix bikes for all the other homeless, and a tearful memorial was held for him Sunday on the riverbed. This article is dedicated to him for what that’s worth.
David Doan, 1969-2018
The Register’s Fine Piece
Tim Houchen’s Eulogy.
RIP David and all you have passed away in the streets. Remember Jesus became homeless by choice to be with those in need he said in John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
So, to recap:
(1) There was no TRO because plaintiffs’ attorneys never requested one.
(2) Had Carter imposed a TRO prior to the result of the Martin case, it probably would not have survived — and potentially could even have derailed that case.
(3) Carter is not at all trying to keep homeless out of South County (including his “precious Laguna Beach), but is in fact holding their feet to the fire.
(4) The specific demands of specific cities seems to be being handled masterfully — with peeling off some of the cities making it easier to lower the boom on the rest.
I think that the people responsible for and posting in Fingal’s excoriation of Judge Carter owe him an apology. (The author claims that you were among them, by the way, Chairman. I hope not.) It would be tragic if this matter were handed over to another judge. The major problem is that his jurisdiction is currently limited to OC, meaning that we may be the only county around (except for maybe LA) that will be doing its part in the short term — but perhaps the Ninth Circuit will find a way to grant him the larger stage that he’s shown that he can ably occupy.
As for the nice things you say about Sharon, whom I blasted recently — I completely agree. My criticism of her was limited to her vote on the “electricity generated from 100% renewable sources” bill, which I don’t think she realized was going to be as big of a deal within the party as it was and will be. I think that she gets lousy advice from those counseling timidity, and as a supporter of hers I see part of my role as letting her know when that has happened. My doing so in your pages may be why she’s being cool to you, but she should understand that your real friends are the ones who will tell you the truth, while fair-weather friends are always happy to flatter and lie.
One question as to David Doan — how was he unable to get a trip to the hospital? Did he not have a phone to call 911? Would no one loan him one? Did he try to get an ambulance but was refused? I don’t think that having a stroke because you were under stress is clearly attributable to homelessness, but not being able to get a freaking right to the hospital because of it seems like it would be. (I presume that that’s not his actual gravestone, so I’m sorry to see it used as a graphic here, which seems disrespectful.)
[Edited to update: Tim Houchen’s eulogy for Doan says that he did die in the hospital, so I presume that only his initial pleas were ignored. Maybe that was enough to make the difference, but I’d still like to know how the 911 system failed someone claiming to be having a stroke.]
No, Sharon wouldn’t be mad at ME for something YOU wrote. It was probably a comment I wrote to your story where I said it felt like she “repeatedly punches me in the gut.”
I was thinking of a few things, but mainly of her endorsement – once again – of Jordan Brandman. We both know what a disaster it would be if Jordan won.
re. Doan. Maybe it wasn’t clear from the Register story, but he could feel something was wrong when he was being transported to the Courtyard by Telecare, and ASKED THEN to be taken to the hospital, and they refused.
And I wish you would stop trying to minimize homelessness as a contributing cause of death, on the week that Trump is doing the same thing with Puerto Rican hurricane victims.
Four: There was never any danger of this case being taken away from Carter (all the other Federal judges have told him they don’t want it) OR of him being so butt-hurt by a Fingal piece that he would up and quit. I didn’t mention in this story but he did make a point of thanking all us advocates.
I don’t lecture you about how to play the piano; please don’t lecture me about law. You’re flat-out wrong — and his thanking advocates doesn’t change that.
That none of the other federal judges *want* this matter would allow them to be able to *avoid being assigned it* if Judge Carter was seen by supervising authorities (in his case, ultimately the US Supreme Court) as having gone well beyond the bounds of his authority. Judges *do* get disqualified from hearing cases for such reasons — and I would expect that as he turns up the heat on the government you will see one or more such disqualification motions as it is, even without his even considering the relief that I think he should consider, which is ordering immediate compliance and fining the cities and countie enough for non-compliance that they’d have to raise taxes to compensate.
Seriously, as someone who clerked on the Ninth Circuit and saw how lots of different judges are treated at the appellate level (and for what reasons), I am massively impressed with the deftness with which he has handled this case. It’s pretty amazing. I liked him before; now I’m closer to in awe of him.
And even though you’re no doubt right that he wouldn’t up and stalk off due to a piece like Fingal’s, he’d probably see it as frustrating ignorant nonsense. HE doesn’t get hurt by it, but as he may not complete distinguish between what’s coming from you versus Fingal versus versus Tim versus Joshua and Lou versus Mohammed versus the various Robbinses versus even me, an enormously stupid, baby-whiting article like his hurts all of our credibility together.
But our credibility is secondary. We have lots of competent judges in our county’s federal and state judiciary, but it’s rare to find ones who are willing to be truly heroic in taking on issues that they probably could have ducked and that will bring them grief. In the past ten years, I’ve seen Judge Goethals do it with the various Rackauckas-Hutchins scandals and I’ve seen Carter do it with homelessness. (There may be other great examples that slip my mind.) Expect me to defend anyone in that class of the judiciary from uninformed attacks vigorously and without apology. I appreciate their job performance *that* much.
Again, see my response to Tim Houchen. I do a hell of a lot better job of stating my case there than Trump does. But I would not argue strongly that homelessness was not a *contributing* cause of death — I’d rank it a third after poverty and pre-existing physical disposition, roughly tied with bad luck and everyday life stressors.
See my long response to Tim Houchen below.
David Doan became ill after being evicted from Baymont and while in transport from Baymont to the Courtyard. He was in the care of Telecare employees that included a registered nurse. The nurse checked David’s pulse saying that it was normal, which is unlikely because he had previously suffered from extremely high blood pressure. David asked to be taken to the hospital several times during the ride from Baymont to the Courtyard, but for some reason his requests were ignored. EMS were called after his arrival at Courtyard meaning that perhaps as much as 30 minutes had lapsed from the time he was stricken until help arrived at Courtyard.
Well then if he has next of kin they may have a wrongful death case.
How long is the trip from Baymont to the Courtyard? I can accept that he may not have had access to a phone during that period to call 911, but being in situations where one can’t have phone access — for example, during a police stop — happen all of the time, mostly to people who aren’t homeless. And people having strokes due to stress caused by government actions — I’m arguably one of them — happens to people all of the time as well, most of them non-homeless.
I’m sure that Mike and perhaps Jeannie think that I’m lining up in opposition to them right now, but I’m not. Homeless advocates, including Vern, have become deeply insular by this point — there being enough of you that you can mostly listen to each other — and your ability to assess how assertions like all of these people dying “because of homelessness” suffers for it.
I think that there are clearly deaths that one can attribute to homelessness:
* dying of exposure to the elements — freezing, pneumonia, heat stroke
* being shot by police or vigilantes for some lousy reason like “looking dangerous on the streets”
* being targeted by gangs or other criminals
* being denied the ability to get services due to the lack of an address or a diminished ability to receive notice of appointments and such
* being jailed as a result of homelessness and being killed in jail
* being more prone to infectious diseases
* being less able to manage chronic illnesses
* being denied access to life-preserving property (including medications)
* greater likelihood of being hit by a vehicle
* (and I’m sure that there are more, which I’ll put under this bullet point)
* to some extent, malnutrition
* to some extent, a greater likelihood of using certain drugs
Other factors may cause death, but aren’t really peculiar to homelessness:
* acute stress
* chronic stress
* being financially strapped
* being abused by public safety officials or bureaucrats
* a base rate of malnutrition
* a base rate of drug use
* (and so on; I’ll add more below this bullet point)
When you water down the first list of compelling reasons to say that someone “died due to homelessness” with the second list of reasons that could apply just as well when a “victim of late capitalism,” or someone impoverished, etc., dies *while they happen to be homeless* but could have died from just as well if they had been in proper treatment, or safely in a motel, even in Section 8 housing or a treatment facility or a regular paid-for room — you cut the heart out of the argument you are trying to get people to accept. Conservatives can generally get away with lying because their fans will root for their team no matter what. Liberals — who in this sort of case ultimately want to tax people to better serve the common good — cannot get away with bullshit like that because conservatives will hate them pretty much no matter what over trying to take away their money and their safety, and other liberals generally want to have their facts in order because they know how easily they can be called out by the media and others.
You can make a compelling case that a lot of people have died who would not have died had they been allowed to stay on the riverbed — to which they had no entitlement once other beds were open. But you’re only going to undermine your own argument by overstating your case.
Doan seems to have been a good guy in many respects, even “a pillar of his community” on the riverbed. But his having died because he just happened to perceive the onset of a stroke during a short period when he couldn’t get in a call to 911 — that’s first of all really bad luck, secondarily the effect of pre-existing vulnerabilities that haven’t depending on where he slept at night, and then finally *maybe* something specific that could not have happened if he had been a renter or inhabitant of a service-providing organization.
From the story you tell, my sense is that he may not have been considered all that credible by the people who first heard him claiming stroke symptoms at a time that they knew that he wanted to avoid transfer to the Courtyard. That has something to do with homelessness, but a whole lot to do with how poor people and people with known histories of substance abuse get treated, even before homelessness enters the picture. Suspicion that he might be malingering may well have held him up at the hospital in the first place, even if he was coming from a facility.
Blood pressure is not a reliable indicator of stroke, by the way. And the proper treatment for one type of stroke — blood-thinners for an embolism — can be deadly if one is bleeding from an aneurysm. It sounds like he had inadequate medical care generally — and likely would have even if he’d had a home, given that we choose not to provide people universal medical care.
In other words, if I were making up a fake headstone for him, it would say that he died of poverty more so than homelessness.
As someone that was in the court room from the beginning when the lawyers asked for a TRO I can tell you they asked for a TRO. The judge just does not remember or care. The majority seem not to care about immigrants fleeing persecution in other countries or that Jews are still the most targeted religion in the USA by violent extremists. And of course the homeless are at the bottom of the list at this time right down there with people seeking a better live in the USA and their children.
Odd that these bigots want nice white homeless Americans in prisons with Black people.
Just my addition of a load of crap on a load of BS at this time…
I was thinking that only a future robot world will be free of bigotry but you can hear it now.
“My coder was Jalal Quadafarajara and yours coder was that worthless geek John Smith”
As the mineral contents differ around the world some they will all be made of different mineral components.
“Our circuit boards are from Tazmanian Paladium, theirs are from inferior Guatemalan Paladium so NO TRO FOR YOU”
If they made a formal motion for a TRO, it will be in the docket. Send me the case number and I’ll look.
If they merely discussed the prospect of a TRO with the judge, which may be what you saw, they didn’t officially ask for a TRO.
The situation may not have called for a TRO very early on, because there are specific requirements to satisfy, but it may have ripened into one that could have justified a TRO later. It sounds to me that that would be the point where they actively decided not to seek one.
A judge consults a docket to refresh his or her memory as often as need be. I think that it’s more likely that you, as someone not practiced at court watching, didn’t quite get what you were seeing (and not seeing) than that the judge totally forgot that a TRO had been sought and (if it mattered) declined to look it up.
As for the judge “not caring” — that sort of loose charge is so infuriating, in light of the extraordinary level of care and commitment that he has demonstrated in this case, that it undermines every single thing you say. Maybe it’s the mineral components of your program that lead you to do this.
“justifiably touting her AB 448 OC Housing Trust bill which had just passed and was soon to be signed by the Governor.”
Only government gets bigger when it fails. Gee, if only we had spent more money…
Good article and thank you. Here is more information regarding Fairview Developmental Center:
Fairview Developmental Center is long term housing and care for severely disabled persons including those with multiple disabilities which make placement in community-based programs difficult at best. This is a highly vulnerable population. It is difficult at best to place homeless persons on the same campus with the disabled persons.
Fairview Developmental Center is being closed with part of the campus being turned into long term housing for some of the clients of the center. This project is called “Shannon’s Mountain.”
When is South County going to get their act together and do their fair share of the work? Maybe a non-profit should buy homes or condos in South County and use those properties to provide long term housing for homeless people.
Well, that’s supposed to be what Sharon and Daly’s bill will facilitate. I think that it should also fund some tax abatements to neighboring properties: even though the values of such properties shouldn’t have to go down, for irrational and prejudicial reasons they probably will, and it’s not fair to let some non-profit decide who gets to suffer the consequences of their decisions without compensation. (This has been one of my problems with this particular democracy-upending bill.)
As long as you have nuts like Spitzer going out and yelling they are all SEX OFFENDERS SEX OFFENDERS SEX OFFENDERS SEX OFFENDERS SEX OFFENDERS I think he used it 5 or 6 times in Irvine – forget building anything anywhere.
You know, I think that Spitzer — who has been LESS responsible than Rackauckas for misery among the homeless and MORE responsible for finding solutions such as the site for the Kraemer facility — *should* offer a public explanation for what you mention. (It may be simply that there’s none of the normal vetting you get for sex offenders who reside in an actual residence if the law becomes that anyone can sleep in any open place, but there may be more to it than that). If you have questions you’d like to see him asked, send them to me. (Or to Vern. Or both.)
No, Spitzer went around to Irvine and Laguna when temporary tent shelters were being proposed there by the other Supervisors, and fallaciously and irresponsibly told local NIMBYs that they were on the verge of being invaded by a bunch of sex offenders. Steel and Bartlett got cold feet. Only Do and Nelson stood up to his fearmongering, both pointing out that everybody in these temporary shelters would be fully vetted and there would BE no sex offenders.
I wrote all about this in March if you don’t remember. http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2018/03/weekend-open-thread-orange-county-convulses-pukes-up-blood/ That article also quoted the Voice of OC: “…county Probation Department officials, who track sex offenders, say there is one sex offender among the 697 homeless people who moved from the riverbed into motels.” And also: “Sex offenders would not be moved to the proposed Irvine shelter, but instead would be offered beds in a separate location where they would be monitored, according to a county official speaking on condition of anonymity.”
This was bad enough that I spent months thinking that I would NOT support Todd over Tony; even now it’s hard to consider voting for Spitzer. I told him, there have been numerous attacks on homeless people, and if there are more, it could be your fault.
You should interview Spitzer about this. I could do it, but I’m firmly in his camp because cronyism from the DA’s office is simply a bigger deal than some degree of NIMBYism — I can’t stand “not in my backyard, period,” but I can live with “not UNFAIRLY or UNREASONABLY in my backyard,” even though I may disagree on what is fair and reasonable — and I think that Spitzer is ultimately the latter, as seen in his word for Bridges and Kraemer (for which Kris Murray takes credit because she’s Kris Murray.) So you should by all means put him on the spot.
I did so, without taking notes, and I came away thinking that he was not a nutty opponent on the issue, but one willing to bring up reasonable policy concerns that homeless advocates understandably want to downplay. Putting aside local opposition for my next paragraph, it IS reasonable to object that the Santa Ana Riverbed can’t be a reliable long-term solution to homelessness because it is subject to flash floods and not only homeless but also their would-be rescuers would likely die in such a flood. It’s also reasonable, though I think somewhat less so, to argue that when infectious diseases are spreading through an ersatz community like that, it’s the county’s problem to address it because the county is responsible for health and welfare and subject to being sued by next-of-kin if it gives de facto (let alone de jure) approval to such a community. Again, I may disagree with some conclusions, but that’s different than thinking the person spouting them is a demon, as I think OCDA Racky is when he will piss on our Constitution for votes. Spitzer, MOSTLY, has the concerns that a public official should have.
The “Spitzer crying sex offender” thing bothers me — but I have to concede that the inability of such ersatz communities to comply with laws like Megan’s Law, which require notification about sex offenders, IS a legitimate concern. I think that it’s solvable and that it’s worth doing what’s needed to solve it, but unless one doesn’t give a damn about sexual attacks (as Racky doesn’t seem to if they’re WITHIN the OCDA’s office), then while I think Spitzer inflates the concern and may benefit (or may not, as Racky will match his bid) from hysteria within the surrounding communities, it’s both a within-bounds stance given his role and a stance well in keeping of his signature issue — victim’s rights, with which I disagree with him more when it comes to pre-sentencing statements — that he’s held for literally decades. But I don’t know what he’d say to you, though I’d be interested in seeing it. One response I’d expect might be — matching you piece-for-piece from our outstanding archives, is the one I did on Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams’s challenge, which linked to a story in his Op-Ed that interviewed homeless and stated that two things that they feared about INDOOR shelters for themselves and their kids and such were (1) exposure to injectible drugs and (2) the likelihood of sexual assaults. So, if sexual assaults are taking place within facilities offered by non-profit groups (I can’t say whether it’s true of those like Bridges at Kraemer), then we can pretty safely presume that more than 1/700 of the people admitted to them were or should have been on sexual offender registries. And making that presumption means presuming that the figure you touted is, not due to any flaw in your own reporting, misleading.
Now cometh the question of how much we should let community sensibilities trench on our rights. Fundamentally, with four competitive House races here, I’m not willing to fail to recapture the House because homeowners think that homeless people camping on their sidewalks means that they and their children and their pets and their lawns are consequently in mortal danger. I don’t think that the argument that OC should have to endure taking on ANY AND ALL COMERS as sidewalk, park, and beach residents — just a reasonable amount (which will likely be a larger amount than residents want, but not nearly as large as homeless people and their advocates would like.) One of the things that Judge Carter did that I really admire was to cap the city and county limits based on a percentage of the last census; if we could come up with adjusted population limits for the rest of this state — and for all other states — based on the burden per capita, we could probably solve homelessness altogether. But it would mean that homeless would sacrifice the ability to live wherever they wanted to — which is NOT a privilege granted to those of us who DO pay rent! — and that does raise constitutional concerns, depending on how it is done. The San Diego to Santa Barbara coastal stretch is probably *the most desirable in the country* for homeless people to settle, so long as they can get services, and I simply do not think that it is unreasonable for those representing our area to say “we will do our fair share, with some margin for error, but not substantially *beyond* our fair share.” That doesn’t mean that I think that that’s the final word in the argument; it just means that that position should be respected as part of the range of respectable opinions. And it’s something that I think can be sold to local residents who are NIMBYs not out of “screw the homeless” disgust but of rational-to-exaggerated fear of the effects on safety and property. (Essentially, if EVERYONE EVERYWHERE has to pitch in, then there’s less rational resistance to one’s own self having to pitch in. I don’t see Spitzer as outside of those bounds. Racky would probably just want to ensure that the burdens were laid entirely on the backs of Democrats, except perhaps for some of his allies.)
I don’t think that homeless activists are with me on that. In my experience they insist that people will NEVER move from city to city or state to state for better benefits, a view that my friends who actually come from such backgrounds find possibly charming, but definitely naive. They insist that there’s no reason to fear sex offenders being in homeless communities from which they don’t have to report their status — when all we have to believe to disagree is that at least some sex offenders are not too dumb to game the system. (Hint: one way to game the system is … don’t move into hotels, which you rightly expect will be monitored! We don’t know that that 1/697 figure applies to the riverbed itself. If the proportion of sex offenders in homelessness communities really is 1/7 of 1% — which seems astonishingly low — then maybe we should make staying there mandatory. Might have done both President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh a lot of good! And yes, Bill Clinton….)
You’re perfectly justified in challenging Spitzer as you did, and doing so for the record — but you might also challenge Nelson and Do about their airy assertion that all people in permanent shelters (which are of course theoretically a step up from SARB-style settlements) would be “fully vetted.” (NO VETTING the county does is “FULLY.” OC Taxpayers are unwilling to fund “fully.”) To me, following the McAdams story mentioned above, the better response to Spitzer’s agitation is to remind voters that homeless are almost exclusively a violent threat to one another rather than to those around them. (The sole exception in the minds of voters might be involve aggressive panhandling. I don’t know whether homeless advocates want to argue that it never happens — duuuuuuude… — or (as I more likely would, after ensuring that it’s so) that the current police response to it is adequate, but maybe we need a better response on that issue that leaves the public feeling threatened than I remember seeing.)
Those concerns raise above aside, these are probably to a great extent solvable problems! We can have “neighborhood councils” with ersatz communities where people are charged with ensuring that sex offenders actually do report where they are sleeping overnight. (Hey, if you think that we can get rid of that law, fine, but until we do so it is the law.) We can have a system wherein if the parts of California without sunny beaches want homeless to stay here, they can bloody well pay for it — and that if we want the homeless sent up to Palmdale and Blythe (or wherever it is now) then WE can pay for THAT! (A guaranteed annual income, including some workfare, with public housing might help out there. Yes, it’s socialistic — and not the fun kind of socialistic, like free college and child care — but unless you’re going to leave people to die, which makes them a bit resentful, then you’re going to need to do something like that.)
I will end by telling you something I know from my background in political psychology and voting behavior — for activists to be having this conversation right now is nothing short of insane. Discussions of issues that stoke fear — of crime, of terrorism, even of ickiness from the homeless — lead people sharply in a conservative direction. The best think that could happen for the homeless is to have eight weeks, starting now, of not focusing on homelessness. The best thing that could happen for opponents of the homeless is more discussion of the “threat” they do or do not pose.
Will homeless advocates agree with THAT? I’d say that the chances are approximately … 1 in 697.
Vern. Sorry to say, but some of these user comments are senseless, apologist, and paranoid. Let’s talk when convenient.
It’s a blog, Darren.
Oh I get it now.
As we speak, law enforcement in OC are persecuting homeless people. Currently, there is a greater number of homeless individuals than there are shelter beds. Therefore, and according to Martin v. City of Boise, the actions that law enforcement are doing runs afoul of the 8th Amendment.
I am an actual person and understand the issue of homelessness in OC. I am a volunteer homeless advocate. I work with OC Poverty Alleviation Coalition (OCPAC) which submitted an amicus brief in OC Catholic Worker et al v County or Orange et al. We have followed the pleadings. We know the Plaintiffs. OCPAC organizes direct relief efforts for indigents and advocates and litigates on their behalf. I was part of a small group of volunteers that have followed the residents of the Riverbed from their campsite to their current location. Sadly for most, the route was the Riverbed, to a short motel stay, to hiding in the streets.
As a threshold matter- I want to say that the gravestone you created was wonderful. Thank you for all that you do, including documenting David Doan’s story and helping to organize his memorial. It was nice seeing you there.
The Baymont hotel was operated by Telecare, a for profit provider of behavioral health services. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that the residents of Baymont were not only indigent, but also diagnosed as individuals with mental health issues. They were and still are under a program called Full Service Partnership (FSP). Many, including David Doan, were also diagnosed with serious physical health issues. David should never have been taken to the Courtyard, which DOC has consistently stated as being over-crowded.
The Courtyard has about 450 people on any given day which the Fire Marshal believes is safe because they classify it as an “Organized Camp.” The occupancy would be under 300 if it were classified as an actual shelter. Downright shameful and one emergency away from a catastrophe not only to the people inside but also for emergency responders. There is simply no justification for the decision to bring David Doan to a homeless shelter. But there are many actions by Telecare that I have witnessed that are inexcusable.
Regarding Martin, it is important to understand that the case (which is the law of the 9th circuit and not the land) does not directly deal with the issues of remedy or damages (TRO, injunction, declaratory relief, etc). The Court simply placed a limit on what the state can do. It does not directly state what the recourse is when the state violates the Constitution, which will be fact and case specific. And to Vern’s point, those facts apply to the current situation. The Court quoted the vacated Jones ruling and held “so long as there is a greater number of homeless individuals in [a jurisdiction] than the number of available beds [in shelters],” the jurisdiction cannot prosecute homeless individuals for “involuntarily sitting, lying, and sleeping in public.”
In OC, there is a greater number of homeless individuals than there are shelter bed. As we speak, law enforcement are persecuting homeless people. Therefore, the actions that law enforcement are doing every day runs afoul of the 8th Amendment. Seeking a TRO is only one remedy, as well as the declaratory relief the Plaintiffs in OC Catholic Worker are seeking. Plaintiff’s counsel are smart and good hearted so I trust they have reasons for not seeking a TRO. But people’s constitutional rights are being trampled on each day. I wish we had the bandwidth for mass defense. We can clog the Courts by fighting these citations. Such a task is easier said than done, but am hoping that the OC Legal community can better provide more immediate relief for the County’s poor .
Regarding David Doan, may he rest in peace, do certain readers of this thread not understand that homeless people have bad health outcomes and those outcomes are attributed to being poor? The data is quite clear that low socioeconomic status leads to people being sicker and earlier deaths. 200 or so people die unsheltered each year in OC.
I have tremendous respect and admiration for Plaintiffs’ counsel. I think DOC, who was assigned to the case because of Brook’s earlier related case styled Schuler v Orange County, is fine. He did his best, but the fight for justice is more than just the legal system. It is political. And while those fights rage on, the indigent suffer. It is hard to believe that for the overwhelming majority, life was better for them on the Riverbed. They had shelter, were more food-secure and were not harassed by cops. It’s sad telling them they have to rough it out streets or deal with the madness at Bridges or the Courtyard. We need to help them stand up to the cruel punishment they are facing.
Thanks for the very elucidating comments, counsellor.
Apparently your third paragraph was addressed to Tim Houchen, or should be. I unfortunately did none of those things for David Doan.
Yes, that was meant for Tim.
To the anonymous commenter at 64.134.234.27 who tried to post a disparaging and unsubstantiated (though not entirely irrelevant if true) allegation against David Doan — he can’t defend himself now, you asshole, so if you’re going to toss out that sort of charge it will be from your own name with a verifiable account and better evidence than just your say-so, to the extent that its relevant at all.
If you don’t like it, blame your fellow anonymous commenters who have proven that that class of commenters can’t be trusted.
Right on. I like your writing. Right on the nail head. If half of this stuff actually happens,the homeless problem will be helped forever. Show the world how it can be done.And Judge Carter will go down in history as an American hero.