Some of the latest data on homelessness available on the website of a city’s coalition addressing homeless, the Anaheim Poverty Task Force, shows the following:
“WHO ARE THE HOMELESS?
There are many different types of data sources that attempt to create an accurate picture of Orange County’s homeless population. Unfortunately, each process uses a different homeless definition and has a different research methodology. ..The two main sources of data on the number and demographics of the homeless in Orange County are the Point-In-Time Homeless Count and Survey (PITS) and the Client Management Information System…Each of these data sources is subject to bias and limitations; however, they currently provide the most comprehensive data available…
According to the 2009 ORANGE COUNTY HOMELESS CENSUS AND SURVEY
- Among unsheltered adults, 16.4% were female, and 83.6% were male.
- Among sheltered unaccompanied adults, 33.5% were female and 66.5% were male.
- When asked how long they’d been homeless since their last permanent housing situation, the largest percentage of unsheltered survey respondents reported “2 or more years” (43.6%),followed by “less than one year” (37.9%) and “1-2 years” (18.6%). The largest percentage of sheltered respondents reported “less than one year” (56.7%), followed by “2 or more years”(22.6%) and “1-2 years” (20.7%).
Among the unsheltered homeless, it was found that:
- 63.4% were chronically homeless
- 33.5% were severely mentally ill
- 47.2% were chronic substance abusers
- 19.5% were veterans
- 1.2% were living with HIV/AIDS
- 8.3% were victims of domestic violence.”
An outreach approach probably would not have had changed the outcome, neighbors would have opposed a shelter anyway but a significant number would have accepted it. I presented my observations to the process used in the Kraemer approach in this post.
Other than the process, the issue has become the model being proposed by the advocates: the large, single, institutionalized Multiple Services Center. It is normal to accept the recommendation of experts, especially on a highly sensitive issue. In Anaheim the main proponent of this plan is the Poverty Task Force, and their expertise and hard work is summarized in an action plan. Most of the quotes I use below are taken from its website:
“The Five Year Plan to Address Homelessness and Poverty in Anaheim is a document that we hope will one day be adopted by the City Council as the City’s official policy. Members of the Task Force are regularly meeting with city officials to ask them to adopt the Plan, but we need your voice and your help to make this change possible!
Key recommendations addressed in the Plan: Create a multi-service center and year round shelter to connect homeless persons with emergency resources, life-skills counseling, job training, and other services”
As part of this plan, Anaheim has allocated city staff “to assist in the coordination of those services to the public through the Anaheim Religious Community Council (ARCC)”. The city hosts quarterly meeting for this organization and the next one will be a “Symposium on Homelessness Recap” and “Engaging the Faith-Based Community & Shelter Efforts”. One of the featured speakers at this meeting is the Director of the County Community Services.
The influence of this coalition was expressed on the unanimous city council support for the shelter. It is great that these organizations are supported by the city, but the same opportunity needs to be given to residents impacted by their initiatives and by the city’s resolutions.
The composition of the Task Force is interesting. It is a very broad
coalition including many local politicians and which contradictory dynamics I pointed out in this post, and recently by the Orange County Weekly in this article reporting on the Embassy Suites meeting.
The shelter model and the Task Force plan “was largely modeled on the Orange County Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness”, which partly explains the connection between Spitzer and city officials on this issue. The virtues of this model have recently been presented to the public at large by the director of the Mercy House. I understand that he feels that he has been misquoted about the legitimacy of the fears of residents, when he spoke at the June 2, 2015 BOS meeting. He seems to be the preferred option to run the shelter.
One of his competitors is the OCEA represented Social Workers, as stated in this editorial column, “integrated services …can only be efficiently and effectively provided by County staff”. As an employee also represented by this Association , I expressed my reservations to them about backing Spitzer’s proposal and their assessment of the public reaction. They acknowledge ” that Orange County requires other regional locations adjacent to public transportation where homeless residents can turn to for help.” The recognition to add other locations reflects the different solutions presented by the Voice of Orange County (VOC), which was well summarized in this article “A New Way to Battle Homelessness Gains Traction.” Alternative models that addresses both the homeless population needs and residents’ concerns would dramatically reduce the pressure on local officials and candidates for public office, and mostly important, reduce the aversion against homeless.
This post ended up TLTR (too long to read…) so I broke it up in two parts. It was as long as my walk delivering flyers. It has been a long and hard process to get a conversation going on, even the simple flyer I was delivering took days to be composed in the most neutral and acceptable terms. My position has been questioned by both pro and anti-shelter groups. My friends, Chris from the piano store, and Lou a homeless himself, asked me on which side of the fence are you?
As I told to the wife of a dear neighbor, I am a bridge. She is an immigrant from Europe, and she said, you know what, I like you, we both have funny accents but we find funny meanings in English words. We laughed loudly, and I continued delivering flyers. I felt that I was canvassing for the councilmember we are meeting this week, James Vanderbilt. He deserves it anyway, he has the guts to meet with us. Hopefully, in the words of another neighbor, he will not only listen, but hear us, before the County’s diligence period on buying the Kraemer property ends, on August 30th.
Click here for Part I
Miami-Dade County – Homeless Trust – News Release
http://www.miamidade.gov/homeless/releases/2015-07-31-mou.asp
*In Miami, they are using Dedicated Parking meter money to support the Homeless. Every Community in California needs to contribute a part of their Parking Meter Revenue to a Statewide Fund which supports finding placement for the Law Abiding Homeless population. Veterans should be the first priority of course. The Miami program is not without the typical warts of bureaucracy and waste – however, the concept is in fact a workable one. The Homeless Problem will not be going away anytime soon, so it in our best interest to open our minds to various creative solutions. With a Spirit of Togetherness, we can make a difference. but somehow those in charge will all have to stop thinking about their own back pockets first.
Florida also sales taxes Admission Tickets (But NOT INCOME!) while in OC Disney just got 45 years of immunity from that! In OC (from Google), it looks like only Santa Ana, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach HAVE parking meters (any additions?)
So, do the other 40+ OC cities have to ADD THEM for you? Do YOU feed any in YOUR neighborhood? Once again, that Magical Guy, Mr. “Somebody Else” to the rescue! The House of Mouse keeps EVERY (untaxed*) DIME from the 10,000 car park they got the (unmetered) City of Anaheim to PAY FOR, while median (TAXABLE !) income in the City is $23,137 (even LESS if they had parking meters!).
Please stay out of MY back pocket, and Good Luck with Disney’s! *(sales or parking tax, they (I assume) pay income tax)
The problem with the community is fear and ignorance of not educating themselves instead they listen to the ignorance of those business around the area of Kreamer Pl. who have the fear of loosing business because of this shelter being near and homeless runing around which is farther then the truth. It didn’t take me no more then a few hours to research other places that have implemented houseing first for the homeless like Utha. In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by the end of 2015.
How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but the keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s. Now the fact that the community around Kreamer place is now having homeless problems is more the reason for them to welcome a shelter most homeless outside that sourounding area will not come there unless there is room for them as they are used to staying in their own community where they are. I know this for a fact because I have talk to many of the homeless around. Mercy House in La Palma Park has storage and food deliverd by some of the churches and yet homeless people in other parks won’t go there or even go to the armory when it’s open because they like staying where they are. The solution is having safe zones like part of the parks exclusive for the homeless just like the city putting a dog park in La Palma park and expecting to open other areas for dogs who really don’t need them becaous they have their own house and owners who can walk them in there own streets. Now we need to have common sense and not fear of misconceptions
Lou, thanks for providing your perspective. The fear of the unknown (what a shelter really means) and our prejudices (viewing the homelessness mostly in terms of life style/individual choices) makes the discussion so charged.
Both anti and pro shelter groups have locked horns. The anti-shelter group represented by the BetterSolutions4Anaheim website has exacerbated the legitimate concerns of the residents into a very negative portrayal of the homeless. They have toned it down lately, and raised good reasons to question the location as the AQMD ones.
The pro-shelter group has put the city officials into a corner, the moral weight of the faith-based organizations has put a tremendous pressure on them and adopted a solution that it is no longer accepted as the only solution, and the most effective.
One of the representatives of the Anaheim Task Force states in the anti-shelter website that “…The proposed emergency shelter/multi-service center is NOT the end solution. It is only ONE PART of the solution that it needed to end homelessness. The solution is simple and has been proven throughout the nation and even in Southern California (LA and OC). When the chronic homeless have the opportunity to live in permanent (supportive) housing, they thrive and their homelessness ENDS. Cost study after cost study in LA, Atlanta, New York, Columbus, etc. have demonstrated it’s more expensive to let people live on the street than for them to be permanently housed. A robust emergency shelter system (which currently OC lacks) is one step in helping people attain permanent housing. Please don’t make the mistake of thinking the shelter will solve homelessness. It’s only part of the solution which is missing in the OC. And YES, there should be emergency shelters/multi-service centers throughout the region. Anaheim Hills can lead the way and show how a well functioning emergency shelter/multi-service center benefits EVERYONE by improving the quality of life for people at the very bottom rungs of our society.”
The bottom line is that the Multiple Service Center is the cornerstone of their expert vision to address the problem. The Housing First approach you mention is one alternative to this model that should be explored. County and City officials should be given the latitude to look into different solutions that may have lesser impact on both communities, residents and homeless people.
There is a momentum in the city council to consider the concerns of the residents before making a final commitment to the Kraemer project. Kris Murray recognized at the last council meeting valid concerns of the residents. James Vanderbilt took note of them as well at the meeting with Rio Vista residents, and it seems that the Mayor is no longer restricted by the City Attorney to speak on the issue.
My final observation to the pro-shelter commenter mentioned above, Kraemer is not in Anaheim Hills. The commenter must have thought that because Kris Murray lives in Anaheim Hills, the shelter also was supposed to be there.
Your suggestion of ‘safe zones’ seems like a good temporary partial solution. Although it raises other problems. A lady at the meeting with councilmember Vanderbilt talked about her fear of walking through a park in West Anaheim, as there were too many homeless people hanging around.
If the Kraemer location is the only feasible one, let it be, but consider the concerns of the residents.
Yes, unfortunately the houseacrats and the politicians and even the professional non-profiteers have tunnel vision that leads to one end: a big, permanent monument to their care and compassion.
But the monument needs to be out of sight and a long way from the County and municipal civic centers.
Tait is still probably going to recuse himself (ridiculously in my opinion) on the shelter issue.
By having “safe zones” It would keep the homeless out of the streets and out of the main park areas like it used to in La Palma park before the city open the dog park where the homeless used stay during the day.
Now the homeless are all over the city and on business lots. As I mention that I have talk to some of the homeless and they would be happy with even part of the big parking lot behind mercy home which hardly gets used.
I have even talk to business owners who support “safe zones”
because their tired of calling the police on them and know the homeless don’t have anywhere else to go so then they hang around their business.
Safe zones would only be part of the solution where organization could set up to help the homeless with housing and where churches could go and feed them and cloth them and where the city could set up bathrooms and showers for them to clean up so they can blend with the rest of the community and not with the criminal element. It’s just common sense but the communities are feed with fear and misconceptions by the ignorance of some of the corporate business like the ones around the Kraemer area who have no concept of homelessness.
Lou, have you received any response from the City regarding your suggestion? If you have not, I will ask councilmember Vanderbilt to consider looking into it.
The city listens but I haven’t had a real response from them. The Mayor did have a meeting with Josh and I for an hour last month and I did suggest the safe zones as I normally do on the Council Meetings. They just don’t know what to think of it or how it would work I guess.
Lou, some of the business owners around Kraemer understand the need of addressing homelessness. They just disagree with the location. One of the owners sent out a statement to the BOS/City Council members and this is the reference to the homeless issue :
“The point is that the Anaheim Canyon actually HAS A CHANCE to attract advanced technology and using it as a location for a homeless shelter is a very bad idea.
An Industrial park is a place for to build a thriving industry to support the economy of the community, so the community can afford to care for its homeless in smaller, friendlier, more positive enviroments.
There are a lot of companies in this industrial park but the only “companies” to benefit from a homeless shelter will be security and chain-link fence installers as they convert the Canyon into the type of area that these impressive clients got away from by coming to Orange County.
Homelessness is a community problem and responsibly, but damaging the economy and its future at its very base makes everything more difficult to accomplish for everyone. “
Regarding the homeless shelter in Kraemer Place and the misconception of the communities who are driven by fear and uncertainty
They know their facing the homeless problem already in their back yards and don’t realize that is bound to get worse without a shelter. The definition of a shelter is a place giving temporary protection and help people get back on their feet. A shelter it’s a transition to many other shelters or permanent housing that are founded by nonprofit organizations and churches around the communities.
Facts From The National Alliance to End Homeless endhomelessness.org
Chronic homelessness is defined as long-term or repeated homelessness. Chronically homeless people have a serious physical or mental disability, including mental illnesses like schizophrenia and/or alcohol or drug addiction. For this population, permanent housing linked to intensive services is usually necessary to achieve stability.
Permanent supportive housing has been shown to be not only successful at ending chronic homelessness, but is also often cost-efficient. People experiencing long-term homelessness often incur significant public costs – through emergency room visits, run-ins with law enforcement, incarceration, and access to existing poverty and homeless programs. A number of cost and case studies have demonstrated that permanent supportive housing largely or totally offsets these costs while ending homelessness.
A study performed by homelessness scholar Dennis Culhane showed that in New York City, each unit of permanent supportive housing saved $16,282 per year in public costs for shelter, health care, mental health, and criminal justice. The savings alone offset nearly all of the $17,277 cost of supportive housing.
A 2009 Seattle study found that moving chronic disoriented people into permanent supportive housing resulted in an approximately 33 percent decline in alcohol use for clients and saved nearly $30,000 per year per person.
The vast majority of people who experience chronic homelessness interact with multiple service systems, providing an opportunity to prevent their homelessness in the first place. Promising prevention strategies focus on people who are leaving hospitals, psychiatric facilities, substance abuse treatment programs, prisons, and jails.
Many places like Utah, San Antonio who have implemented homes first model not only have saved millions a year but are in the verge of ending homelessness in their counties.
Showing the communities that the shelter will start pulling people out of the riverbed and that it would be just the start of ending homeless not only in their community but around the surrounding areas and save tax dollars in the long run.
It has already being proven to be effective so it could only makes common sense.
If the people keep listening to this businesses that are ignorant to the homeless situation and can only presume it’s like the blind leading the blind.
This last post was the one I left with the Board of Supervisors because I missed my turn on giving this comments at Tuesday Aug. 25 meeting. I gave them my script for that days public comments in hopes that they read it.
I did not realize how widespread the presence of homeless people in the riverbed until I attended the meeting with councilmember Vanderbilt. Neighbors from the Orange Riverdale area stated that the number of homeless in the section that runs along the City of Orange is noticeable, as well as a significant number of incidents. The tent featured in the picture of one the posts is in my area. Also, as it was mentioned at the Embassy meeting, one of the victims of the serial killer was a homeless person who had made his home in the riverbed.
I think that everybody in our area is more aware now of the homelessness situation, and willing to do something. That is the message that the business owner I mentioned above is saying. I will ask him and Chris Vance if they could expand their views and solutions with us, what they mean by” smaller, friendlier, more positive environments”. They could also tell us where they envision these environments should be.
Regarding the safe zones, I hope that the City gives you a response soon. If you have a chance, read Michael’s observation below about the “safe zones” experience in other cities.
Please forgive my misspelling of some words and grammar.
Earlier I read a comment by David stating that Mayor Tait can now vote on the shelter issue. Has the city attorney changed his position?
There is a growing momentum in the council to consider the questions about the Kraemer location. Kris Murray at the last council meeting finally acknowledged that residents had raised valid concerns. James Vanderbilt listened and took notes on the questions expressed at the meeting with Rio Vista neighbors. Is Jordan Brandman going to say anything?
But what about Kris Murray’s impassioned speech? After that, is she voted not to put in the shelter at all, it would be highly embarrassing.
Well, it might not be so bad if it went into the Karcher location or the one in the Manchester parkland that they just rezoned to industrial — but how likely is Murray to vote for that? I think that she’s stuck with this plan.
Ricardo, Tait can now participate in the disposition of the Karcher property – you remember, that site that was purchased by the City in 2014, ostensibly for a homeless shelter. That little acquisition fell under the radar quite some time ago, didn’t it?
They paid $3,115,500 for that site. What will become of it? It’s zoned commercial, I believe, but with the right help from his friends Pringle could get a nice little entitlement for a client.
I thought you meant the Kraemer property.The Council intention was to use the Karcher one for a homeless shelter, but it was dropped due to the objections of the nearby residents. When they started to look for replacement sites, Kraemer was not the only option they found, there was another centrally located one. What made them to settle for Kraemer, and to shut out the impacted residents feedback? As reported by the OCR:
“Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray said she is still open to having a shelter in Orange County’s most populous city, as long as it came with plenty of community input.
“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.”
That sounds like baloney. There is a grand total of one residence anywhere near the Karcher site. It’s all industrial commercial and some UCI health stuff and the Goals Academy, of course.
So now the City owns a nice little $3,000,000 chuck of real estate with no (publicized) plans. Look for an upzone and another tax-kickback giveaway.
One thing needs to be made absolutely clear. Property values WILL NOT decrease because of a shelter. First, the Eli Home has had a homeless shelter in Anaheim Hills for more than a decade (yes, the Kramer project is technically in the Canyon Business District and not Anaheim Hills) without a negative impact on property values. Second, there’s no evidence that shelters in and of themselves cause property values to decrease (although bad schools, a loud, unkept or foreclosed adjacent property or garbage dump definitely will). Last, do a Zillow search around the Fullerton and Santa Ana Armories where the Cold Weather Shelter has operated for years….no significant differences in properties adjacent. The notion that property values will decline if shelters are adjacent is not based on fact; it’s based on fear and stereotypes some residents have of people experiencing homelessness.
Hi Bob.
A few observations. There is plenty of evidence from neighbors that the Eli Home house in Anaheim Hills was a just a Potemkin facility – empty most of the time. In any case it wasn’t/isn’t/will never be a “homeless shelter.” The armories are seasonal emergency shelters and so do not provide a valid comparison with a permanent. Many neighbors are probably unaware of how the armories are even being used.
I remain unconvinced of the strategy of building a permanent facility anywhere, give the transient nature of the challenge. I understand that institutional thinkers will always want to produce another institution, especially a permanent, physical edifice.
But consider the cost: that Kraemer Place site will end up costing $10,000,000
just to acquire, gut and reconstruct. Now that ten mil, it seems to me, would go along, long way to address immediate needs of people in distress (although the expense could not be rolled out as a vanity display by the politicians).
I would really like to know your feelings about that Karcher site; a site that was already purchased by the City of Anaheim for over $3,000,000 with the intent of a putting a homeless shelter there. This site is much better situated for a shelter and could be the site of a flexible shelter community using modular prefab construction for sleeping, kitchen and shower/bath facilities. And this could be done for fraction of the cost of buying and bringing an existing building up to code requirements.
P.S. The City has already had utilities run up to the site.
Which site — Karcher or Kraemer?
Karcher.
The utilities were put in as part of the sales agreement, for which the City paid Karcher $112,500 as part of the deal.
Interestingly the subdivision of the Karcher property (think repackaging) that was approved by the City in 2013 included an agreement that recognized that the City intended to buy and develop part of it.
A year later the land was purchased by the City (not the Housing Authority) using capital improvement funds instead of affordable housing funds that would have made more sense.
And now in 2015 the land is free for re-sale with no affordable housing requirement encumbrance. It’s almost like watching a flightless bird waddle into an alligator farm.
Bob, you may remember the reaction of the Embassy Suites’ audience to the Zillow’s reference. They laughed at it. You may be right that there may not be a factual correlation, but the pragmatic reaction is that there is one. I will ask Michael Chew, the president of the Riverdale Neighborhood Association, about it as he is a real estate professional.
Other than the property value, would you mind commenting on the fear and stereotypes? The data I quoted from the APTF website clearly indicates a significant percentage of homeless people requiring intensive assistance. That data does not seem to include the homelessness resulting from the crush of the mortgage industry.
According to the OJB publishers, one of the most popular posts here is about that segment of the homelessness population living in motels. Let me also refer to another post in which commenters describe their experiences.
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/06/homeless-the-motel-kids-of-orange-county/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/03/fullertons-hunt-library-branch-closes-but-whats-this-about-homeless-from-anaheim/
Ricardo:
I’m not aware of data parsing those who experienced homelessness as a result of the mortgage industry crisis during the Great Recession. I can tell you that most families, even families in motels, experience episodic homelessness not chronic homelessness. Furthermore, the federal government during TARP, offered homeless prevention assistance to families with imminent risk of loosing their housing. It was a short-term, declining rental subsidy program; it was not offered to help people retain their mortgages. Homeless prevention services have survived in the Emergency Solutions Grant program, but these funds are very quickly exhausted within the two-year funding cycle for eligible jurisdictions.
Also, for several years I worked for the City of Anaheim as it’s sole representative addressing families in motels. (That position was eliminated as a result of the recession!) Check out the Collaboration to Assist Motel Families, for studies and programs to assist people living in motels.
Bob, as a Broker/Realtor and Property Manager, I am not convinced of your Zillow argument or the argument regarding the locations of the temporary shelters in Fullerton and Santa Ana.
If the proposed 200 bed PERMANENT shelter draws increased numbers of homeless into the area it is not a far reach to anticipate those turned away or those going into and out of the shelter will take up residence along the Santa Ana River or on the Santa Ana River Trail, Olive Park, Rio Vista Park, or Eisenhower Park.
Negative impacts to a communities appeal and quality of life DO impact property values. The idea of “safe zones” are problematic and many times unenforceable. Look at the struggles that Venice has had enforcing car camping, or the struggles cities have had enforcing anti-camping ordinances, or panhandling as protected free speech.
Think about a prospective buyer/renter who goes to check out a house/apt/business and the corresponding area/neighborhood. Imagine their coming across a vehicle packed to the hilt with clothing and stuff parked in front and a homeless sleeping inside, or a homeless person passed out on the sidewalk on the corner, or an encampment along the river trail less than a block away. Do you honestly think these things would be a positive sales/lease points?
If the area/neighborhood becomes a homeless mecca (like the Civic Center) then the Zillow Values of homes/businesses in close proximity to the shelter will fall….
Michael, as a student of social science, I again have to ask where are the empirical studies that demonstrate shelters have a negative impact on property values? Even in Skid Row in LA, due to gentrification, people experiencing homelessness have not deterred developers from renovating properties, and buyers from purchasing residences where there are many homeless individuals still on the street. Now, these homeowners are not happy with the conditions, which they were aware of when their homes were purchased, but property values have actually increased!
Again…there is no large body of empirical research that demonstrates there is a direct correlation between emergency shelters and declining property values. There is research that demonstrates loud neighbors, foreclosed properties, and poor performing schools impact property values. And there is not conclusive research that adjacent rental properties decrease property values.
The Los Angeles Business Journal recently ran a story about skid row in LA.
The story of a company that was moving out after extensive remodeling to add gated rooftop parking for employees and customers and 24 hour guards.
They have given up and are moving out. He expects to take a huge loss on the sale of the property.
the 54 blocks of skid row started out with one homeless shelter.
Here is an interesting link for you.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/08/how-los-angeles-created-skid-row.html
Santa Ana and Fullerton had plans of opening shelters over a year ago but the communities came against them just like you people who oppose the one on Kreamer Pl.
So what happen where the city scrap their shelter program things got worse not better just like the civic center did. Now we know for a fact that Irvine, Utah, San Antonio and other places that have implemented shelters and homes first and which have helped many homeless get back on their feet and back into the working class again they found that they have actually been clearing and ending the homeless problems and saving tax dollars in their counties just because instead of the communities coming against them the city went ahead with the program without fear of the unforeseen and misconceptions.
Now when a city starts to infringe on the homeless bill of rights like our fourth amendment right which starts with: The right of the people to be secure in their persons etc. or the pledge of allegiance which ends with for liberty and justice for all!.
Know that when we let the government body implement policies that affect our constitution rights just because it will affects a few people that we regard as not being part of society well you who support this policies because you think it will get rid of the problem will be surprise that you have giving up your own rights.
Now know things could only get worse without shelters and that the homeless problem won’t go away and that your rights that you have giving up will affect you if there is an unforeseen catastrophe that will leave you on the streets.
But until then you will have a rude awakening of the fact that you have lost all your rights.
Mark my words.
“Santa Ana and Fullerton had plans of opening shelters over a year ago but the communities came against them just like you people who oppose the one on Kreamer Pl.”
Mr. Noble, I oppose the Kraemer place site for a variety of reasons and I live no where near it. I (and 350,000 other Anaheimers) bought a site off Karcher Way last year for the purpose of building a homeless facility. It cost me (us) $3,112,500. And that’s where I want it.
Now, back to the rest of your comment – here are a few things I am offended by:
Blaming the murder of Kelly Thomas by the cops on the lack of a homeless shelter;
Blaming illegal search and seizure by cops on the lack of a homeless shelter;
Blaming the homeless cleansing policies of Anaheim and its cops on the lack of a homeless shelter.
See where I am going with this? Get a shelter and you will see more intolerance of the uninstitutionalized homeless, not less.
BTW, the homeless advocates took their eye off the ball and got stuck with Kraemer Place; soon I predict, you will lose that, too.
I Really don’t care where the shelter is as long as the homeless that are in harms way get shelter some of them are woman and teens who come from abusive homes. And yes I blame part of the problem on police overreach and unconstitutional policeis that if not discriminating they are infringing on our fourth amendment right. Am out there when the church or other organization that feed the homeless are not there when some of the cops overreach their authority and start harassing the homeless for being homeless.
I have videos to show. Now if you support that then your part of the problem of having no knowledge of what goes on in the streets and why we have a police state now. Go homeless for a week and you will see what I mean.
No one wants to be homeless specially with all the discrimination you get if your homeless. Some of the homeless had being killed just because their homeless. If they had shelters we wouldn’t see that much hate for them. The city spends more tax dollars when a person is homeless then when their giving shelter. It has being proven. Do I have to repeat myself just do your own homework if you don’t beleave me because I will never get through to you.
“If they had shelters we wouldn’t see that much hate for them.”
Oh, I think that’s where you’re wrong. Once a shelter gets built God help those homeless who refuse to be pigeon-holed into it.
Hi David Z.
Regarding the Eli Home, I have first hand and eye witness knowledge of the homeless mothers and children that lived at the shelter in A.H., as I was the Eli Home Asst. Director for a couple of years. Though it was not an shelter for 200, a few neighbors, stated the same NIMBY concerns about the program reducing property values and it simply was not a factual reality. The shelter is still in operation (with mothers and children in residence) and neighboring property values are what’s expected in A.H. (Ricardo, people also laughed when scientists claimed the earth was not flat, but round. Some people, no matter what empirical evidence is presented, choose to cling to their stereotypes and biases because it supports their world-view.) To reiterate, properties values will not decrease because of the project.
David, the Anaheim Poverty Task Force, agreed that the Karcher site was a better location in terms of serving the population in need. We argued for its use as such in private meetings with council members, board of supervisors, and county and city staff, as well as at public hearing before the city council. However, as you well know, politics is often the art of compromise and for reasons unknown to us, the Kraemer site was removed from the discussion.
An emergency shelter and multi-service center was one of the goals in the 5 year plan we published in 2010 to end homelessness in Anaheim. I would be very happy if the project was in my backyard in West Anaheim; it simply is not an alternative that has gained any traction. The Kramer site has more political support than any other site for such a project in the entirety of the county’s history of dealing with this problem. For better or worse, this is the best alternative to no shelter whatsoever in north county. Similar facilities dispersed throughout the county are part of the OC 10 year plan. The Kramer project would be the first of several (the next hopefully to be in Santa Ana).
Without emergency shelters/multi-service centers it’s very difficult to do the labor intensive and individualized plan development for the unique needs of each person and family seeking homeless services. It’s one of the primary focuses of the federal government’s funding priorities for homeless services, centralized intake and assessment. BTW, most of the funding for homeless services in the US, comes from the US Dept. of HUD, Homeless Continuum of Care–not county funding, not private funding, not faith based charity. Local governments cannot address homelessness effectively without meeting the requirements of a centralized intake and assessment system, i.e. without an emergency shelter and multi-service center or some analog of such.
Furthermore, regarding permanent facilities, their is much empirical evidence proving the success of permanent housing especially for the chronically homeless and veteran homeless populations. I recommend you explore sites such as the National Alliance to End Homelessness and the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
I would also recommend Google searches on the topic of Housing First, and cost-benefit studies regarding permanent housing vs allowing people to live on the streets.
It seems that Housing First is the preferred approach, and according to your expert opinion it is part of the Shelter program. I thought that Housing First does not need the shelter component.
As it is late, my last point for tonight is about the political support that the Kraemer location has. We need to define what political support is. The increasing opposition from the residents indicates that the support is not very solid.
Ricardo:
It’s true, many chronically homeless individuals are not well suited for emergency shelters and congregate living quarters; they are better served and achieve greater lengths of housing stability in their own separate units. However, for many, emergency shelter can be a useful tool while waiting for housing opportunities. For example, a homeless veteran who is eligible for a Veteran Affairs Supportive Housing Voucher, but has not yet found a suitable unit, may be temporarily housed in the emergency shelter.
Also, the BoS has the right and ability to establish an emergency shelter ANYWHERE in the county of Orange, with or without community support. So, ultimately, the issue is not how much the residents object to or support the project. The issues comes down to whether or not there are three votes on the Board of Supervisors in favor of project.
Typically, the BoS prefers to have community support for its actions, and though they may loose some voters with an unpopular decision, elected leaders can vote against the wishes of community.
I am counting on the BoS to make such an unpopular decision.
“… for reasons unknown to us, the Kraemer site was removed from the discussion. ”
Bob, you meant the Karcher site. And I would very much like to know the reason why it was removed from discussion…particularly since the City spent three million dollars to buy it and run utilities to it. It’s there. Why not use it? Your “political compromise” may well end up with no shelter at all – Anaheim’s ruling clique is sending out signals that Kraemer may be doomed, too.
I disagree that Kraemer is the best alternative to no shelter – other than at present it is the only alternative presented. There are probably several reasons this odd site was delivered to Spitzer and although the public is not aware of them, my guess is that none of them are very savory. But north OC is full of old industrial buildings since that seems to be what you guys are going for.
When you mention “permanent housing” as a proven successful outcome for the homeless you’re employing a tautology. Who can disagree? Yet a permanent shelter only provides temporary housing unless you are planning for permanent residents.
But changing topics, why build a permanent structure at all? All the services you describe could easily be accommodated by modular facilities set right on the ground for maybe a quarter to a third the cost of building a permanent structure. I have been trying to get people to understand that spending less on physical infrastructure makes sense since it would free up resources, could be installed quickly, and later on be relocated or dismantled. For some perverse reason the people in charge want to waste millions on physical plant.
But changing topics, why build a permanent structure at all?
Because you can’t attach a self-congratulatory plaque to the cornerstone of a building that doesn’t have a foundation? Because modular buildings might someday be taken apart and reassembled in a neighborhood closer to the Masters of the Universe?
“Because you can’t attach a self-congratulatory plaque to the cornerstone of a building that doesn’t have a foundation?”
Yep. It’s all about appearances with this crew.
David. Though I agree governments should seek cost effective solutions to social programs, I don’t agree that permanent buildings are always a waste of money and simply to prop up the egos of politicians/administrators (although this certainly happens!). You get what you pay for. If you want cheap, the result will often be and feel cheap. What’s so wrong with having a decent place where people who are experiencing homelessness can receive services? It doesn’t have to be the Venetian in Vegas, but given all the indignities people experience on the street, I for one, am not opposed to people having a safe, clean, welcoming, if not beautiful environment from which to begin to envision a better future.
I recently visited a permanent supportive homeless housing project for people living with HIV/AIDS. It is a beautifully designed structure which has an atmosphere of wholesomeness, health, and peace. Most people would feel honored to live in such a place. What’s so wrong with having a nice place to talk with a intake worker, counselor, case manager, or housing specialist at an emergency shelter/multi-service center? Helping people recover a sense of dignity is priceless; I don’t see it as a waste of million.
…as a waste of millions. Great examples of this are Father Joe’s Village in San Diego, the Long Beach Multi-Service Center, and the PATH Mall in Los Angeles. Ask the communities these programs serve and the overwhelming majority of residents, law enforcement, and city officials will tell you these permanent facilities are not a waste of millions.
Bob, I don’t know anything about those places you cite, but it makes sense that the less you spend on permanent buildings and the cost of their maintenance and depreciation, the more you have to spend on other things.
I’m pretty sure we’re not talking about the same thing, but I won’t use the word “waste” anymore since that seems to be offensive to you.
Bob, I think we will have to agree to disagree on the matter of a physical structure. To me the first priority should be to deliver immediate shelter and priority services. If somebody is in cardiac arrest you don’t worry about the cabinetry and window treatments in his room.
I really do see the construction of a permanent structure as principally a way to demonstrate one’s level of commitment – apart from any specific efficacy therein. I’m sure that appears cynical to a idealist.
If I could build you my facility on the Karcher site for $2,000,000 (land already paid for) and promise you the remaining seven or eight million for whatever ancillary homeless services, etc., would you take the deal?
Yes.
While I have been waiting for Robert to clarify whether the Housing First is an alternative or complimentary program to the Multiple Services Center Shelter model, I perused some literature on the subject. The Housing First approach is being implemented in several cities and the most successful implementation so far is in Utah and Santa Clara.
It runs into certain degrees of NIMBY resistance, non-participation by some homeless individuals, requires funding and staff. It is not a perfect solution but it seems better than the single large Shelter model. Local suggestions such as the ones presented by Norberto of the VOC, using the Santa Ana bus terminal as an anchor of triage services, or David’s modular mobile temporary units, although make sense to immediately addressing the challenge, do not fit the prevailing long term solution patterns offered by the experts.
If Bob does not show up tonight, I will be meeting with somebody from the Anaheim Poverty Task Force tomorrow and I will ask for a clarification of these models. I will also ask whether the existing political will, including the negative one as a result of the Shelter,could be channeled to a downsizing of this model and to finding better locations.
In the meantime, this is an excerpt on the Housing First experience:
“…As in Utah, the leaders of Santa Clara’s initiative were able to marshal different agencies, nonprofits, and private groups, unifying their vision and goals to house the chronically homeless. “At first, it was tough to move out of the shelter way of doing things. It was new to all sit around the same table and change the way the system responds to homelessness,”
If places as different—economically, demographically, politically—as Salt Lake City and Santa Clara County can make Housing First work, is there any place that can’t? To be sure, the return on investment will vary, depending on how you count the various benefits of fewer people living in the streets, clogging emergency rooms, and crowding jails. But the overall equation is clear: “Ironically, ending homelessness is actually cheaper than continuing to treat the problem. This would not only benefit the people who are homeless; it would be healing for the rest of us to live in a more compassionate and just nation,” Tsemberis says. “It’s not a matter of whether we know how to fix the problem. Homelessness is not a disease like cancer or Alzheimer’s where we don’t yet have a cure. We have the cure for homelessness—it’s housing. What we lack is political will.”
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/santa-clara-silicon-valley-homelessness
Ricardo:
You are correct, Housing First is a complimentary strategy to Emergency Shelter and Multi-Service Centers. Ultimately, all successful strategies will lead to permanent housing. A principle benefit of a ES/MSC is the co-location of services in one place. It’s very difficult for people experiencing homeless to travel to several different places for intake, assessment, case management and services; it just not a very efficient system. HUD is requiring all jurisdictions who receive federal funding for homeless services to have a coordinated intake and assessment system. ES/MSC programs help to accomplish this objective.
It seems to me that Housing First is an alternative to the MSC shelter model, but you are the expert.
When I managed the homeless continuum of care in Long Beach, we used both strategies–Housing First and the MSC. These are complimentary strategies that are used throughout Southern California, notably San Diego and Los Angeles. We have the very difficult problem of the high cost of rental housing that makes Housing First a limited solution in our area.
*Quick Question: Are you using the Penny Saver, Independent and local Newspapers to find Rooms for rent as a possible resources?
Bob, you’re giving me mixed responses. My reading of the Housing First is that it could be an alternative to the Shelter model. It could be complimentary, especially in OC due to the reason you mentioned regarding the housing market. Nevertheless, theoretically it is an alternative, Excuse me if I use Wiki :
“Housing First, which is distinct and separate from “rapid re-housing”, is a relatively recent innovation in human service programs and social policy regarding treatment of the homeless and is an alternative to a system of emergency shelter/transitional housing progressions.”
I get the same reading of the VOC article I cited in my post ” A New Way to Battle Homelessness Gains Traction”. Granted, for practical reasons, this model may not implemented widespread in OC right away.
Let’s go back to more practical items. Please explain how the public is supposed to understand the negative categories (severely mentally ill, chronic substance abusers), reflected in your APFT data and how they are going to be addressed in a shelter environment, if any impact they may have in the surrounding communities:
Among the unsheltered homeless, it was found that:
•63.4% were chronically homeless
•33.5% were severely mentally ill
•47.2% were chronic substance abusers
•19.5% were veterans
•1.2% were living with HIV/AIDS
•8.3% were victims of domestic violence.”
Vulnerable populations such as the chronically homeless, those with mental illnesses, substance abuse disorders, veterans, those living with HIV/AIDS, and victims of domestic violence are often in need of services. Which is better: to link people with appropriate services or to leave them on the streets without such? Who will have a greater negative impact on the quality of life in a community? Those who are absent such resources, or those connected to appropriate services? The purpose of an emergency shelter and multi-service center is to link the unsheltered homeless to appropriate services and permanent HOUSING.
People are in need of these services today and are living in the community unsheltered without these services. To resist efforts to offer these resources is not only mean-spirited, but is also short-sighted and self-centered. Homelessness is not just a problem for those living on the streets; it’s a problem for the entire community and an issue which requires all sectors to solve. Simply hoping it will go away to another more perfect location is continuation of system that has been broken for too many years.
I apologize for preaching (although I was seminary trained as a preacher); we have waited for too many decades for the system to begin to be fixed. The year round emergency shelter and multi-service center is an integral part of the solution and its time has come. In spite of all the negative community resistance and fear, can you please help us make this happen at the Kramer site? Will you do everything you can to support its implementation so that it will have the least negative impact on the neighboring community? Will you join us in our advocacy to end homelessness?
Bob, I’ve said many times, if the Kraemer is the only feasible, practical option currently available, then let it be. It is easy for me to say this location is bad, but for a homeless person any sheltered location would be OK, even if they have to be transported from whenever they are and uprooted from their places. As Lou points out in his argument for safe places, homeless persons tend to stay in familiar surroundings, as that is the case with the homeless lady in my neighborhood. Her family lives in the neighborhood, they try to take care of her as much as she allows them, such as providing her with clean laundry. I don’t know the legal and medical constraints to assist her, the APD has dealt with her several times but she remains in the streets, and the risks for herself and the neighbors are worry-some. Mr Vanderbilt’s office is looking into the history of incidents with this lady, in which the APD has been involved, and hopefully something will come up to help us, and by us I include her.
You keep giving me general and run-around answers. Homelessness has gained much more attention in this part of town. Most people, if not all, for genuine reasons or not, want a sensible solution. So tell me, and this is one of my concerns as I have a family of young daughters, how is the Shelter going to prevent more mentally ill or substance addicted persons from using our neighborhoods as a result of the overflow from the shelter? I got the point that we already have homelessness in our backyards, and not all of them have behavioral related-problems In addition to our own local homeless lady, homeless use the front of the abandoned Ralph store here and there to camp overnight. Open this damn store building and make it a transitory homeless shelter then! We could not even get Fresh and Easy to come over, and we are stuck with the 7 Eleven as our main quick grocery nearby store. BTW we are also counting on Mr Vanderbilt to help us on this issue, as the neighbors were not pleased with the Mayor’s answers when they met with him way before the shelter issue came up. Probably the answers were realistic but where is the political will to address them?
Anyway going back to the point that I get it, I realize now how many homeless person are using the river, the local parks already, they were using the lobby of the local post office to sleep. It is much better to provide services rather than ignoring the situation. Will you help us to specifically address in concrete, practical terms how the concerns of the neighbors will be considered and incorporated?
“David’s modular mobile temporary units, although make sense to immediately addressing the challenge, do not fit the prevailing long term solution patterns offered by the experts.”
Although there are lots of people claiming expertise, I have my doubts, based on what I have seen. I think this problem is going to be fluid and is probably not going to be “solved” long-term or short.
Although I don’t care for military analogies as a rule, I can’t help but think of the French and their Maginot Line – incredibly expensive, permanent fortifications that couldn’t solve the short or long-term problem – keeping the Germans out of France. In hindsight it’s easy to see that a much better investment would have been developing more nimble and flexible military forces.
Experts or claiming to be experts….they have more knowledge of the subject matter but as in the case of the Climate Change expert visiting us last week , their conclusions can be questioned. As RC somewhere said, at certain point we need to stop kicking the can, and some kind of action is needed before the next El Niño, which is predicted to be much worse than the previous one. So what about using your temporary modular units at the Karcher site and the OC Great Park in Irvine, the Santa Ana bus terminal, the empty Adray electronic store in Chapman next to McDonalds in Orange, mega-churches and a section of the ARTIC station as temporary shelters until the Kraemer project is resolved?
Why not, indeed.
The drive to build the big, permanent shelter reminds me a bit of the Quest for the Holy Grail. Or the search for El Dorado.
By which I meant to say I think the Kraemer Place site situation has been resolved.
The holy grail in this context is NOT permanent shelter, but permanent HOUSING. For the chronic homeless, the best practice models replicated nationally are a special type of product called Permanent SUPPORTIVE housing.
Emergency shelters and multi-service centers whether virtual, mobile, tents, or bricks and mortar are necessary for “triage” and intake processes to determine the best solutions for the individual (or family), the appropriate referral, and to get people off the street before they are subject to more trauma and while waiting for units to become available.
This means we need to add to the housing stock product which is safe, decent and affordable to the population. If you think people are opposed to an emergency shelter in their back yard, just mention the term “affordable housing” and the NIMBY’s will be driven to even greater heights of frenzy!
Maybe not to you, Bob.
But from what I saw at the County it was indeed the end zone, mostly because politicians like Nelson and Spitzer are NOT long view types and the big, expensive project would show off their can-do ability, their charitable impulses (with somebody else’s dough) and of course the bronze plaque cast with supervisorial name prominent.
“Emergency shelters and multi-service centers whether virtual, mobile, tents, or bricks and mortar are necessary for “triage” and intake processes to determine the best solutions for the individual (or family), the appropriate referral, and to get people off the street before they are subject to more trauma and while waiting for units to become available.”
I agree. So why not pursue the quickest and most economical solution immediately. We have the land – two or three acres in north Anaheim, already bought and paid for by the City of Anaheim. This site with a modular/pre-fab arrangement could be designed and installed and operating less than six months – no kidding!
The Anaheim City Council needs to be called out publicly. I really believe that carrot they’re dangling to you over at Kraemer Place is going to be yanked out of reach pretty soon.
You got it Ricardo. The cure is there and if not implemented soon things could only get worse. We will see ourselves with an epidemic out of control.
David:
As stated in a previous response, the APTF lobbied earnestly and for several months for the shelter/msc to be located at the Karcher site. It became clear after several long conversations face to face with each council member, the mayor and top administrators that there was simply not enough council votes. (There was a time perhaps in the previous council structure with Eastman, that it may have been possible.) All of the alternatives you mentioned plus others were discussed, even the quick time frame for modulars. We were supremely upset and disappointed after working since 2008 for such project in Anaheim when the Karcher site was removed from the discussion. Especially after the failures in Fullerton and Santa Ana for similar actions.
On the other hand, support for the Kraemer site has been unanimous from all of the above parties from the start. In less than 6 months! This location has so much more political will behind it than any other in the HISTORY of OC politics. Unlike you, I don’t see the Anaheim and Fullerton (and Brea?) councils overturning their decisions. It is a good solution, and the APTF is unwilling to sacrifice it for the perfect solution. We are determined to put the full weight of our resources and considerable grass roots, faith-based community organizing efforts behind this project. The shelter/msc will be built at the Kraemer site and the next will occur in Santa Ana (location TBD).
The Karcher site on Harbor Blvd is simply to close to city hall to be used as a homeless shelter. The Council doesn’t want it in their neighborhood. Although they are willing to put it in our neighborhood. It gives them that warm fuzzy feeling that they have done something. They won’t be in office when the problems grows with overflow from everywhere. If you built it they will come! From far and wide.
Small distributed housing is what can work. Help the homeless where they are. Not by transporting them out of your neighborhood.
These are people. putting 200 of them in one box is inhuman, not kindness.
This is a community problem and should be solved in the community where they are. Then you could say there is no new negative effect because the homeless are allready there. Lets help them get indoors, People in small groups can get help and help each other. Small groups together can generate HOPE. the most essential element.
In a huge shelter the desperately unemployed are housed with the criminally intent. BAD Combination.
In a huge shelter Families are housed with those with sexual problems. Bad combination.
Homeless is a community problem and the first step in handling it is to break it down into small pieces. Not combine the problems into one larger problem. Unless you can dump it into Anaheim’s yard.
“It became clear after several long conversations face to face with each council member, the mayor and top administrators that there was simply not enough council votes.”
Why not? That’s why they bought the damned thing! Who are the “no” votes? Tell us, for god’s sake, please. We (the taxpayers of Anaheim) spent $3,112,5000 on that site, ostensibly for a homeless shelter. Who voted to buy it who is now reneging?
You’re going to end up losing both sites.
I’d like to thank Bob and through him the APTF members, for presenting their valuable perspective. I salute them for their hard work and for what they have accomplished. I may not like their conclusions (MSC shelter as the only starting solution, a kind of General Hospital with multiple clinics later) and the way how they have proceeded (the attitude of “just suck it up”, our solution is the only solution, we have the political will on our side anyway and we only need 3 BOS vote).
It seems that the way how this accomplishment (the shelter proposal) has been managed, it has apparently not included them. It is hard to believe that they have not been told the reasons why the Karcher site was dismissed. Common sense would be to know the reasons, either financially or resident’s reaction, to plan the next move. If the reasons were financial, there are much better sites than Kraemer (what about leasing the land next to Hardin’s auto center?). If the reasons were because of residents ‘opposition, which seems to be the real reason, then you prepare a neighbors’ buy-in plan.
It was good for them to have had the entire council’s support, having Murray and Brandman taking the lead, as they are the elected officials. But was it necessary to have had Murray’s speech putting down the dissenting voices and then the parade of politicians at the EV church, in which Spitzer refused to engage in one to one conversation with the neighbors? Is it necessary to keep the “suck it up” attitude and give the impression that the concerns of the residents is just a desire not to have a shelter?
At the end of the day, we may have a “last and final” action by the BOS and just suck it up. But what if the momentum going on at the council, of finally accepting to consider the resident’s concerns, ends up with a different or delayed outcome? What are the alternatives to put in place before El Niño arrives?
Perhaps the Federal funding requires a shelter, but again in the cited VOC article it is stated that “changes in federal and housing policies have made it easier to give the idea of housing first a try”. What about talking to the Illumination Foundation which is featured in that article? Perhaps the smaller, friendlier, spread-out sites which may have less impact on both residents and homeless is possible.
I will ask Brad Fieldhouse to share his success with his program of Coming Home Anaheim, in which hundreds of Anaheim residents have been moved off the streets already. How come this program has not been expanded? I will ask Larry Haines his opinion and to clarify why he thinks he has been misquoted when he stated that the fears of neighbors are legitimate.
This process needs a clarification and a sensible resolution. Whoever is advising Spitzer’s (isn’t Chris Nguyen, his Senior Advisor, considered a brilliant strategist?) needs to present him a plan that reflects both the needs of the homeless population and the concerns of the residents .
Lloyd Pendleton of the Utah Homeless Task Force, will make a presentation in Orange County on the nationwide move to a Housing First model to end homelessness.
“Utah has nearly ended chronic homelessness while saving taxpayer’s money.
Lloyd Pendleton is one of the strategists who implemented what the Washington Post calls “the nation’s most successful – – and radical – – program to end chronic homelessness.”
The Daily Show
Daily Show Full Episodes, More Daily Show Videos, Comedy Central Full Episodes
Where can I contact the organizer with any questions?
You can call Denise Voss at 2-1-1 Orange County 714-589-2356 or dvoss@211oc.org”
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/homeless-to-housing-successful-model-for-change-
So. This is really all about location, since all of us want to help the homeless, just not at Kraermer Place….
Orange County Rescue Mission has got it right…all the way. Give them a call at the Tustin executive office at 800-663-3074.
They have three facilities, are run 100% from private donations, and they know where to put their facilities: At the old Tustin Army Barracks, at “the Ranch” in Temecula just for men, and a facility in Corona/Norco that is 100 beds, been there for 15 years, with multiple services, including physicians. Since they took this location over from the previous management, police say they have no problems with it.
Forget Mercy House. Larry Haynes has lost credibility when he wants so much to run the Kraemer location, if and when. It is not a good location, yet he wants to do it any way, and he was the first one to state at the BOS meeting that it WOULD hurt property values, and that is a big deal.
The right location is one with plenty of room to grow, where land is cheap. Make it a full services location, live in group homes to address specific problems, medical, rehab services, etc. Less expensive land and erect cement-sided buildings in one week. These people can be transported, processed and put right into the building for their specific needs/age group/gender.
April, it doesn’t have to be where land is cheap. The City of Anaheim ALREADY owns several acres they (we) bought from Karcher for the express purpose of a homeless shelter. At least that’s what the City told the media.
So let’s use it.
P.S. your mention of mercy House brings up an issue I have been wondering about for years – how did this organization get a sole source agreement explicit or tacit, to be the operator of a 200 bed shelter?
It is not necessarily about the location, but as to what is considered the most effective solution at the present time.If the OC Rescue Mission is the model to follow, and they are doing a great job, there must be valid reasons that preclude it from being adopted by the BOS as the solution to pursue. I can think of at least two reasons:
1) The volume of the homeless population. One facility can not absorb the number of people. See the results released from the County Commission to End Homelessness (their solution is the MSC shelter)
• The results from Orange County’s 2015 Point in Time Count & Survey have been released, and show that 4,452 individuals were homeless the night of the count in late January. The County estimates that 15,291 individuals will be homeless sometime during 2015, illustrating the urgent need for a year round emergency shelter & multi-service center in Orange County.
http://ocpartnership.net/images/website/1064/files/2015_pit_results_c2eh__final_7-30-15_funders_2125.pdf
2) The remote MSC location using the “Humane Society” approach. Picking up homeless people and busing them to remote locations (it is bad enough that they may be bused to an urban location like Karcher or Kraemer) to be sheltered and assisted has been rejected already.
This approach would put the Police Departments in a role of enforcing homeless into shelters. This would lead into a slippery road as pointed out by David in an earlier comment: “Get a shelter and you will see more intolerance of the uninstitutionalized homeless, not less.”
So the question remains as to what is the appropriate solution. So far we have identified three : 1) the MSC in an urban location; 2) the MSC in a remote location 3) Housing first.
How about multiple 50 bed MSCs located in plausible places using portable housing, kitchen and bathroom units instead of a single 200 bed monolithic institutional structure?
As far as I can tell the effort to find the right location has been hampered by a half-assed effort, compounded by the desire for a permanent structure.
But some site still has to be first. And that site should be the Karcher site.
BTW, yes, building a permanent facility is going to create a permanent transportation and logistics problem
I think that a permanent facility for a specific population — families beginning the transition to homelessness — could make sense.
But I agree with the rest of your comment: especially re the Karcher site.
Multiple mini 50 beds MSC makes sense, we would need about 100 of them to house 4452 persons who were homeless in one night. Unfortunately we are not the experts or policy makers.
Even supposing that count were accurate, all of the homeless will NEVER consent to being enclosed and ministered to. And this is one of the big problems – there are all kinds of different homeless within the population and my suspicion is that an awful lot aren’t interested in being institutionalized in any format.