Last week, Katharine Russ, an Orange Juice reader, contacted me to request my investigation of or issuance of a blog post on a pending zoning variance decision in LA that will impact acute health care for veterans.
In her communication she opens stating that the “heart of the controversy surrounding the Sepulveda VA facility is the granting of the variance by L.A. City Council so that two buildings can be turned into apartments that may (or may not) house Veterans.” She adds that “The provisions of the (75 year) lease (for a sober living center) only give “preference” to veterans and make provision for changes to the lease that could redefine potential tenants.” This variance would impact 7.05 acres of the 160 acre site.
In one report I read where “Lester and Mary Gentry donated 160 acres with the intent that the land be used for veterans. That appears to be a core issue of this debate.
Katharine’s communication states that “granting the variance would severely debilitate and incapacitate the more than 150,000 veterans who rely on the Sepulveda facility for medical care and who are now forced to travel to West Los Angeles for acute care.”
Where I spotted one conflict can be found in H.R. 1642, from the 1st Session of the 110th Congress in which it reads “an Act to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to ensure that, to the extent possible, an enhanced-use lease for a homeless housing project at the Department of Veterans Affairs Facility known as the Sepulveda Ambulatory Care Center located in North Hills, California, shall provide that such housing project shall be maintained as a sober living facility for veterans only, and for other purposes. On page 2, beginning at line 20, it reads: (1) That the housing project located at the Center shall provide housing exclusively for veterans, as defined in section 101 of title 38, United states Code.” Reading further, on page 3 beginning on line11, it states: (4) That the housing project shall provide housing to not fewer than 150 and not more than 225 residents.”
Part of the dilemma is that “in order to satisfy state and federal fair-housing laws, the sober living facility could not limit services to veterans, but instead would give veterans “preference.”
Take note of the housing cap in H.R. 1642 that is rather lame when you factor in the 20,000 homeless veterans in the LA County area needing housing after six months of drug and alcohol treatment.
The spokesperson for the non-profit group “New Directions” claims that “to create studio apartments exclusively for veterans would require special legislation that could take years to pass.” What a cop out.
Some activists have expressed concern that once the variance is granted the remaining acreage would be converted into commercial buildings.
The case# for this pending variance is ZA-2008-2304(ZV)(SPR)
To sum it up I see a few key points.
We have legislation that covers “veterans only” while the lease only assures veterans of a “preference” which creates a wide open door full of wiggle room.
When you read of the housing needs of veterans in this area H.R. 1642 is a band aid solution at best.
The real issue is that this story re-opens the debate of our treatment of returning troops.
Katharine reminds me that “in September 2007, The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, gave testimony on Capitol Hill citing the Veteran’s administration shortcomings, “Delayed decisions, confusing policies, and the perception that DOD and VA disability ratings result in inequitable outcomes have eroded the credibility of the system, thus, it is imperative that DOD and VA take prompt steps to address fundamental system weaknesses.”
Note: “New Directions offers case management, job training, substance abuse treatment and recovery services to veterans.”
New Directions would also utilize HUD which could be the reason that the “preference” for veterans does not exclusively insure veterans will be given apartments.
The requirements in the project’s tenant selection plan are absolutely unbelievable! First, they require the so-called homeless veteran to pay $15 for a credit report. They also require the homeless person to pay a security deposit equal to one month’s rent. Next, they say that if the rent is not paid on time, the homeless veteran will be evicted and there is no provision as to what happens to him or her when they are out on the street again, except to provide for a collection agency to enforce payment of any back rent.
Now, leave it to your readers- is this the price those who fought for our freedoms deserve?
Katharine.
Thank you for contacting me about this issue. While the print media provides daily coverage of those on the battle field they tend to overlook the same troops when they come home.
Copies of this post were sent to my friends at the OC Register. Hopefully they might be able to provide some investigative reporting on the Sepulveda VA and treatment of these American hero’s to their readers.
Thank you again for starting the dialogue.