.
.
.
I wasn’t at this past week’s Anaheim City Council meeting due to work, so I missed Lucille Kring’s over-the-top attack on Anaheim’s homeless while celebrating the creation of the City’s dog parks. First credit for this story goes to Voice of OC’s Adam Elmahrek, who captured the political quote of the year (which I’m re-punctuating for use in the motivational poster I’m considering marketing) from La Kring:
“It’s wonderful for the dogs, it’s wonderful for the owners — and it really keeps the homeless out!”
Kring was responding to several frustrated residents who attended the council meeting and complained about homeless people at Twila Reid Park in west Anaheim. They demanded the city do something to rid the park of homeless people and said adjacent neighborhoods had become havens of crime and drug use.
Kring’s response was rooted in past practices by city officials. The homeless population in the city’s La Palma Park went down significantly after they turned it largely into a dog park, Kring said. OC Weekly reported on the tactic earlier this year.
Adam also conveyed a lengthier, but no less spicy, quote from Kring — criticizing churches:
“I would like them immediately to stop feeding the homeless. … You’ve got the trash. You’ve got everything incorporated with feeding people who should not be fed there.”
For the record, Kring was an Anaheim Mayoral candidate in 2014, running on the “City of Kindlessness” platform.
Meanwhile, OC Weekly’s Gabriel San Roman added some useful context:
The city council approved a $1.1 million contract Tuesday to construct another dog park in Anaheim Hills (where few, if any, homeless roam). But Kring emphasized the need for one in west Anaheim at either Twila Reid or Maxwell Park to the thunderous applause of NIMBYs in the audience. The latter has been the site of constant filming of police and code enforcement interactions with the homeless by advocate (albeit anti-gay) R. Joshua Collins.
Cruel Kring also rambled on about how the city [having] curtailed church groups from feeding the homeless at La Palma Park [was] a good thing! The council-pendeja‘s comments come at a time when NIMBYs went on the attack against the county proposed homeless shelter site near the park.
“We have received numerous resident requests for dog parks and continually look for opportunities to add them throughout the city, including in west and south Anaheim,” writes Anaheim spokesman Mike Lyster in an email to the Weekly. “As we have seen at La Palma Park, dog parks are an amenity that our residents love and that can broaden and enhance the use of an existing park.”
I’ll admit right here that I haven’t yet watched the video of this week’s — but I can only imagine how big of a fight there was on the dais between Kring and her customary ally Kris Murray! You see, I was there on April 7, when Murray spoke on this issue. (She begins at 2:45:25 on this video and the applause for her ends at 2:50:XX. Excerpts of it were even featured prominently on Southern California Public Radio’s report on the meeting!) That speech, which future pro-Murray crossover Democrats will tout as “Murray’s Finest Moment,” passionately called for treating the homeless with kindness and respect and not like trash! Here — I even transcribed it for you:
Councilwoman Murray: I’d like to begin by thanking County staff, as well as Chairman Spitzer and Supervisor Nelson, who’ve worked with the city for years now, several years, to look at a number of options to look forward with a full-service community center, homeless shelter, that had a full range of services to our homeless population. I understand a number of sites we looked at previously were just not considered “ideal” for a number of factors, but that this one proposed could meet all of the requirements — and there are myriad requirements, and these types of parcels are not available, readily available, just anywhere — so finding an idea site that has transit, that has the size and space and scope to really provide a very beneficial and full service shelter is difficult to come by, as we’ve undertaken the effort of looking across the county.
I want to thank our Staff, Kristine Ridge, as well as my colleague Councilmember Jordan Brandman, who served as Council Liaison with the County to develop this option that is before us tonight. I think it’s an extraordinary opportunity to really have a full service shelter become truly viable in Orange County, and particularly in North Orange County, where we have a significant homeless population — not just here in Anaheim, but in Orange and Placentia, in Yorba Linda, and even in Fullerton. So this site better serves all of those cities.
City officials in the city of Fullerton spoke in support of it at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting. We’ve had talks with City officials about splitting the cost, potentially, of any gap between what the County can afford and what we can afford, and I am wholly in support of that — not just this resolution tonight, but making sure financial resources are there to truly see this come to fruition in a very dynamic and important way to have all of those services in one facility.
[2:47:52] I think it’s important for anyone who objects to understand that we haven’t come to this point in time easily. In fact, Karen Roper and I, through my work previously, professional work, I’ve actually worked with you on the Task Force to End Homelessness more than ten years ago — [laughing] it’s hard to believe that much time. This has taken quite some some to get to this point of time, and we can’t continue to just push the issue in hopes that some “perfect” scenario is going to materialize.
It is absolutely critical that individuals who are homeless — many of whom are veterans, many who are children, many who are families and individuals with mental health issues — that they have a full-service shelter in the County of Orange. And I’m proud that Anaheim has put so much effort into numerous programs through CityNet, and working with our faith-based organizations — Mercy House, Illumination Foundation, so many worthwhile organizations as well as partnering with the county — to do as much as we could in reconnecting people with families and providing them services in absence of a shelter but as we know the Armory is not a permanent solution. We need a permanent solution and we need a quality facility. So I would just ask everyone to please have patience. Please come to this with compassion. And really think about the importance a permanent solution that really makes sense for our county and for our community and for the homeless population.
So with that I couldn’t be more pleased tonight to support this item. Again [nodding towards Brandman] I thank you for your leadership, and I thank the County, the Chairman, Spitzer — I think that it’s awful that anyone would disparage him when he is coming forward with a very viable solution — as well as Supervisor Nelson, who’s worked so closely with the city over the years.
So, it shouldn’t matter as much where as finding an ideal location and making sure that it is a full-service and quality facility, and this really seems to do that. So thank you; look forward to supporting this option tonight.
Chair Pro-Tem Kring: Anyone else have any …
Councilwoman Murray: I’ll move the item, OK? [2:50:01]
Admittedly, she made this speech in support of approving the purchase of the “Kraemer Place” property in Anaheim Canyon as the proposed site of a 200-or-so-bed homeless facility — which is now being attacked by a group organized by Murray’s ally Matt Cunningham. This move tacitly allowed the diversion of the much more central and appropriate “Karcher” lot (purchased last year for this purpose at a price-tag of $3.1 million) from use for the homeless to … well, we don’t know yet, but judging from past practice it will surely involve enrichment of a crony or two. (Or many.)
If Cunningham’s people successfully change the Council’s mind, then the combination of no homeless services at Karcher, and no homeless services at Kraemer, and no place to exist at La Palma Park or Twila Reid Park (because dogs need a place too, and they are cuter than the homeless), will leave Anaheim in the position of having reduced the ability of homeless to survive in the city. They will have really “got the homeless out.” (This, reflecting as it does the European reaction to the Syrian refugee crisis, will help to cement Anaheim’s status as a city ahead of its time. Figuring out ways to let the poor and weak die both out of sight and out of mind seems to be the emerging public policy program of the 21st century.)
Using “dog parks” as a rationale for excluding the poor from public space is brilliant in its way — especially by giving dogs the right to defecate and urinate in a public space while denying it to humans who lack facilities to do so. (That’s truly Louis XVI-caliber thinking! Of course, as Kring implicitly recognizes, the homeless might stop defecating and uriniating so much if people would just stop giving them food and water!)
But still — having made such a “Finest Moment” speech, leading moments later to the wild applause of the many homeless advocates in the audience, Murray has to keep up appearances. So I presume that she took the opportunity to absolutely lambaste Kring’s suggestion that part of the reason for the municipal dog parks is to come up with a reason to clear out the homeless and make them live elsewhere — ideally across city or county lines — the better for those Anaheimers unafflicted by poverty to frolic.
I’ll check out the video when I can. In the meantime, those of you who were there can let us know how forcefully and eloquently Murray replied when the Council meeting audience was not filled with homeless advocates (apparently ones unfamiliar with the recent history of La Palma Park) demanding a shelter, but instead with people who don’t like the homeless being around. I hope that this was a second Finest Moment for her!
Honestly, I don’t think the self-righteous siblings off on the other end of the dais even HEAR anything Lucille rambles on about down on her end. I have to shut her off after a while to stay sane, until they set up a snack stand with a bar in Council Chambers (just THINK Of the concessions haul on that franchise. Ah forget it, Legends would get it.)
And of course we had liberal (as in often, not politically left) use of the phrase “homeless problem.” Hmm…describing an entire segment of the population as the “XXXX problem,” labeled inferior, dirty, criminals, mentally deficient, etc. refusing to see their individuality or value as human beings, but instead lumping all together into one category for the purpose of “solving” the “homeless problem.” If turning the dogs out to “fix” it is today’s solution, how far behind can boxcars be? (it’s temporary shelter, really, we are not actually shipping PEOPLE out in metal containers made for household goods…)
Yes, I understand the frustration of those living around Twila Reid park, including those who report being awakened late at night by Police who were trying to remove someone sleeping on the ROOF, and those who have their homes and cars broken into, bicycles stolen, and back yard fences hopped in a getaway move to evade cops. I understand it because when the dog park (which we regularly use) displaced the homeless encampment, it chased those folks down into my neighborhood, as we live equidistant between La Palma Park and Pearson Park, on what has become “the homeless highway” offering a steady stream of human beings dealing with the worst kind of fear and uncertainty on a daily basis, schlepping their worldly goods in a shopping cart, and sadly, yes, stealing anything not nailed down in a desperate efforts to survive. The tent city is no longer the visible reminder to the world of the City’s FAILURE to provide a policy even TEN YEARS after murray admits to working on it (not sure I would brag about that if I were her, but then she doesn’t think through consequences very well.)
Lucille Kring, the gift that keeps on giving.
BTW-Victoria Michaels (not understanding the fund restrictions related to transportation grants) had suggested diverting the $1.3MM in increased contract fees to Hill Intl for continuing the streetcar, and using it for the schools or homeless instead. Of course the Council jumps on that immediately, conveniently omitting to answer ANY of the perfectly viable issues she brought up and instead focusing on the one flaw in the argument that can exploit, the famous “we can’t use that money for any other purpose.” But do you know WHY there is money specifically set aside for completely asinine projects like the streetcar yet none for helping people without homes? Because once upon a time someone thought transportation was important enough to create a specific funding stream. The Resort protects their interests by setting aside a SPECIFIC FUNDING STREAM, like ATID. When will we see a leader with the political will to say that compassionate care for those unable to care for themselves (not those unwilling, and there is a difference) is one of the highest priorities that a civilization can have, and set aside a SPECIFIC FUNDING STREAM that cannot be touched by idiots with their own self dealing plans?
Maybe not — but I’ll bet that one of their aides read the VOC and OCW stories. And if they cared much about it, they’d have already replied.
(OK, it’s also possible that I’m trying to protect my precious premise. My Precious!)
TEAM KRING/BRANDMAN/MURRAY NEARLY OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN SPEAKS:
James Robert Reade · Fullerton College
Anaheim Ambassador Lucille Kring represents the City of Anaheim very well in my opinion. I appreciate that she is willing to hold accountable criminals and drug users and dealers who litter our beautiful parks and refuse to be helped out of a nasty situation they put themselves in. The homeless women and children accepted help from the City. The City’s homeless outreach program has been highly publicized. Stop sympathizing with lazy male sub humans.
TEAM BRANDMAN UNOFFICIAL SPOKESMAN SPEAKS AGAIN:
James Robert Reade · Fullerton College
Anaheim helped redirect the homeless to resources. The program is well publicized. Most homeless in our parks are dangerous criminals and drug addicts who refused services. Homeless women and their children accepted the gracious outreach by the city unlike the sub human leftover males who prevent the rest of society from enjoying recreation at parks. You have no excuse for your extreme ignorance on this subject. You like to play the role of pastor because you refuse to accept responsibility for your life. We hold accountable violators of our right to enjoy use these wholesome spaces.
TEAM BRANDMAN/KRING UNOFFICIAL SPOKEMAN STRIKES AGAIN:
James Robert Reade · Fullerton College
Gainfully employ yourself in a real profession and stop leaching off society by preaching fanaticism and accepting donations from weak minded people.
Where are these from … and does Fullerton College know that he’s using their name?
Weekly.
*Yeah, it is about time that the Presidential Candidates start to address the Homeless problem in the United States. What does Donald Trump have to say about that?
I’m close to declaring this blog a Trump-free zone.
*Truly? Things are definitely and obviously ……going completely to the dogs!
Vive la résistance!
Beyond the Lucille Kring’s dog park comment and Murray’s finest statement, “passionately called for treating the homeless with kindness and respect and not like trash”, and let’s add Brandman all of the sudden becoming the homeless liaison with the county, there is a complex scenario. In some situations elected officials gauge how to apply their leadership based on the issues and the pressure from the public.
We all would agree that there is a much better awareness of the homeless challenge. The problem is how to reach a sensible immediate solution. One way is the Sinatra Spitzer way, the shelter at the odd Kraemer location. As Lou Noble has said, he does not care whether the shelter is located as long as there is a one. Fine, I respect his point of view as he is a homeless person.
The problem has been how to convince the non-homeless person that it is OK to have a shelter nearby. Yes in my Backyard is a step in the right direction but that alone will not break the NIMBY resistance. Most of the residents as the general American people are very compassionate people (in spite of situations like Henry Kissinger’s policies, Abu Ghraib jail and Guantanamo detention center). The outreach to the residents has been terrible. Now if you don’t care or mind about the residents’ reactions, then just do it.
It is inaccurate and unfair to present the opposition to the Kraemer location as an “attack” and on top of all “as being organized by Murray’s allied Matt Cunningham”. As I have described in my posts and comments, the website operated by Matt exacerbated the resident’s legitimate concerns into a very negative portrayal of the homeless. Whatever his reasons to operate and facilitate the opposition to Kraemer, he just reflected the resident’s concerns, and who knows to what extent he distorted them.
Disagreeing and having reservations about the Kraemer project is a valid position. Whether the MSC big shelter or a downsized one will be placed, or not shelter at all, at this odd location, sooner or later the residents were going to be heard by the city council. The reaction to the shelter has opened a much needed and varied discussion in our part of the town: accept the shelter/ downsize it/ designate it for a specific population/ create mini shelters in better locations/ explore Housing First approach/ ship the homeless to remote locations/ whether the institutionalization of homeless will encourage the Police Departments to force them out of the streets without their consent /create safe zones.
Kring’s leadership failed again. Will the other council members, including the Mayor, take into account the homeless population needs and residents’concerns into account? (and make the decision transparent, unlike the decision on the Karcher site)
You’re correct that not all of the opposition to the Kraemer site is from those organized and represented by Cunningham. You yourself are a good example of that: you’ve offered a thoughtful and considered critique. And yet, I submit, your critique will not move the Council majority, whereas Cunningham’s might — precisely because he is their political ally.
In an idea world, the Council majority would listen to your concerns and ignore what he has to say. But, in an ideal world, the Council majority would not be on the Council at all. All I think that I can do at for now is to point out the hypocrisy and point to the presence of real and doable solutions. So far, I like Zenger’s “small-scale modular housing” plan, focused on Karcher (near where the homeless apparently want to be) the best. If that plan wasn’t doomed before, that statement of mine should seal their fate.
Reade and Kring truly are the spokesmouths of the “make ’em behave or put ’em in jail or on a bus to Victorville” school of thought. My stance is: give them a safe place to sleep, bathroom and shower facilities, and a place to store their things safely — and then just let them live their lives so long as they don’t commit crimes with actual victims. It’s the rare one, I think, that wouldn’t take that deal.
But, having thought about it, I don’t think that “Housing First” works in OC because of the high property values here. I worry that “Housing First” will become the rallying cry for “move them to Temecula or Victorville, where land is cheaper” — but where the homeless don’t want to be. If sent there, they will invoke their constitutional right of travel to return here to where it’s a little cooler and more interesting. So then, what — we end up jailing them, spending even MORE, aside from the indignity and harm we’d cause?
If the homeless are going to be in housing within OC, it’s going to be modular and temporary and in a place where housing otherwise wouldn’t be built. The Karcher spot is very good for that. Kraemer is not so good — but it would be a good place to house families who are transitioning into homelessness and really don’t want to be seen by the public and suffer embarrassment. (And I’ll bet that Ricardo and the other resistors of good will wouldn’t mind the latter set-up too much, so long as other areas were doing something about the problem as well.)
“And yet, I submit, your critique will not move the Council majority, whereas Cunningham’s might”
No, that’s backwards. Cunningham’s activities demonstrate where the Council majority has already moved.
Doesn’t look good for Kraemer Place.
This is the difference between you and me: completely cynical versus only mostly cynical.
He started way before I think that the Council was convinced, even if they are now (as I don’t concede). He wasn’t doing it to reflect the Council’s change of heart (or whatever makes their blood circulate), but to get paid.
I am a realist.
Murray was talking up the alternate immediately, as were other Pringle puppets. They ran it through the boob Spitzer who was only too glad to wade into the quagmire. This was quite a while before Cunningham began his efforts. And he would NEVER have joined an effort to kill it without checking in first with his gauleiter.
The purpose of the Kraemer site was to divert attention from Krarcher site. And you’ll notice that it worked, really well. Once that was accomplished it wasn’t worth the fight.
Anyway, nobody cares what Cunningham “thinks” mostly because he doesn’t, and can’t think for himself. He can only repeat what he is told to repeat and that’s about it.
By the way, has Brandman repudiated the remarks made by Kring? Is he lacking the “testicular fortitude” so often described by his Irvine Inamorata?
I’ve heard no tell of his doing so. I’m sure that he’s willing to test his own testicular fortitude — just as soon as he finds a couple of things.
*This is the very reason why it needs to be named the County Homeless Administration Center, to get our feet in the door. Everyone has a ox to gore in this mess… except the people that need to be taken care of ….
We proposed a prayer vigil for the Anaheim City Council to do the right thing.
Maybe the Mayor should make that the topic of his upcoming Prayer Breakfast.
Greg, I agree with your observations about the Housing First approach. However its proper and feasible application should be considered by both the County Commission to End Homelessness and the APTF. You may have read the VOC article on an OC organization already implementing this approach. Anaheim has what seems to be a similar program called Coming Home Anaheim.
A driving factor in Spitzer’s proposal is to secure Federal funds, and a shelter or any other acceptable mechanism would make those funds available. This may be the fundamental reason that the Anaheim council supported the shelter proposal, plus the faith-based organizations’ influence. This also offers an insight in the success of the unique alliance between a poverty task force and this council majority.
Cunningham’s role could easily be over-estimated. It was strange that he was involved in organizing an opposition, knowing how close he is to Murray and Brandman. I raised this question early and ended up being isolated. I submit to you that regardless of Cunningham, the residents and business owners were going to be heard by the council at certain point before a final decision is taken.
Now the question is whether Murray will maintain her original support to Spitzer’s proposal or offer a compromise. There are funds, awareness and an urgent need.
*RT – Glad to see you are hot on this issue. One thing is sure – The Homeless Issue is not going away any time soon, and each and every City Council and County Admin are going to have to deal with it and take responsibility for their “Fair Share” of the problem. If they don’t soon create the right Administrating Organization for processing these folks – the situation will soon become so untenable that all these electeds will be going out and not coming back. And rightly so. These folks have had years to deal with this issue and as our famous black guy on the bike said during the OJ Riots – “The biggest problem in the world …can be solved when it’s small!” Keep both feet planted on their chest and get these folks to do something for their society just once!
Thanks R&A. It is about time that something be done. My APTF friends have been working so hard for so long to finally get the political support for a solution.
I just hope that they and our city council members consider the impact of resolutions like this:
Los Cerritos News
August 4, 2015
La Palma Supports Orange County Homeless Efforts
By Tammye McDuff
The County of Orange has approved a ten-year plan to end homelessness that was developed by the Commission to End Homelessness (CEH). The Plan outlines the mission, vision, core values key goals and strategies to implement necessary action and successfully reduce the homeless issue in Orange County.
The single most important action currently needed is to develop a year round permanent emergency shelter.
Recently the cities of Fullerton and Anaheim have collaborated on several initiatives to support the Orange County Plan to end homelessness. Anaheim has now identified a site for consideration as a regional shelter. The site is located at 1000 N. Kramer Place in Anaheim, within the Anaheim Canyon Business Center site [near East La Palma Avenue, North of Riverside [SR-91] Freeway between Orange [SR-57] Freeway and the Costa Mesa [SR-55] Freeway].
The location is intended to serve the region and provide services to the surrounding cities, including La Palma.
In partnership with Mercy House, the County currently operates the Orange County Cold Weather Armory Emergency Shelter Program from November to April each year.
However with the number of homeless individuals growing, the program cannot meet the needs of this year round population. A permanent site would improve cost effectiveness, living environment and program outcomes.
La Palma City Manager, Ellen Volmert addressed Council, “the recommended action is to adopt this resolution, adding the support of our City. It would also be expected that once the facility is operational, the city would be involved in coordination of local services for the center.”
While the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton have agreed to contribute $500,000 each toward the County’s $4.2 million purchase of the proposed site, there has been no discussion of financial contributions being made by the other surrounding cities.
Staff report stated the City of La Palma General Plan Housing Element includes a section dealing with emergency transitional and supportive housing. As required by state law, it establishes a zone within the City where emergency shelter is a use permitted by right. Supporting a permanent location outside of La Palma, but close enough to provide services for the community would reduce the need or demand for placing a shelter within the city limits.
Volmert noted that the City is not required to support this or any other specific site. However it is to the benefit of La Palma to have a permanent site and resources to offer when the issue associated with homeless individuals or specific needed services arise.
Council Member Steve Hwangbo stated, “Even though it does not directly impact the City, I think that this is an important motion and we should be supportive of it.” Hwangbo made the motion to approve with Council Member Steve Shanahans’ second. The motion was carried with five approval votes.
Imagine if everyone bitching and moaning, debating which solutions are best and blaming others, went to the cupboard made a few sandwiches and fed some of these starving souls things might be a little brighter. Then again, perhaps not because it seems that it’s always the same three of you babbling. Like three old men at the coffee shop.
Believe it or not , we do that as well. We are not “purotopian coffee drinkers”. We just drink senior McDonald’s coffee though, it is affordable and tastes better than Starbucks. BTW, would you mind to offer any contribution to this challenge and debate, this is what this blog is all about. You never know you may have a good one.
I’m not sure whether to mildly dismiss this as “unhelpful” or to go all the way to “pig-ignorant.” People that you’re talking with here — whoever you are — have been involved in actual lobbying and advocacy on this issue. Your chosen contribution, apparently, is to slag them for it. (Now I feel bad for stopping at “pig-ignorant.”)
Several issues are popping up here;
To begin with, I agree with Mr. Zenger. The Karcher lot was purchased with the intent (by someone) to land bank until it is time for a “pass through” deal to special friends. Just as the parks funds have been used and now the latest scheme is buying land for a fire station when the money to BUILD the fire station is not going to be available, since they have essentially spent the same dollar (or ten million of them) twice. It is a scam, using public funds to assemble parcels for special friends or pet projects.The Karcher site was never going to be a shelter. I said it would be a car lot, complete with tax kick back to the dealership. Zenger said it would be rezoned for housing. The Kraemer site is just a diversion to get our attention off the karcher site so it can become some uber sports complex, as envisioned by Brandman and shared during “Jordan’s soliloquy” portion of the July 7 meeting. Parks even tried to give us a head’s up on it earlier in the year but none of us put it together.
Cunningham is not driving the opposition, he is facilitating the plan already in place. If the City/County had any intention of doing this it would be done already, and opposition be damned. These people are known for shoving bad ideas down our throats in one meeting (or less) while ignoring the locals who are screaming to slow down and let us study the issue. That they have not done so here tells us their real intent. Pretend to work toward a shelter so you get brownie points for compassion, then change the plan to show how accountable you are to the constituents you answer to. In the end you do nothing but still get to take a bow. AND you get to use the “surplus” land for a pet project.
NEXT ISSUE;
How did we get to a point where we are taking in those from other communities, as reflected by the statements by La Palma’s officials? That is NOT what this shelter was supposed to do, and statements like this just feed the opposition, rightfully so. There is a genuine and legitimate fear that once a shelter is in place every other community in OC will ship their homeless over, and fail to step up and take responsibility for the issues in their own areas. The shelter is far too SMALL to handle all of Anaheim’s homeless, much less all for the County. EVERY community in OC needs to step up and manage their own population as a public health issue, just as each community manages their own public safety and infrastructure.
An emergency shelter is supposed to be a stop gap of a place to be safe and out of the weather while those in need can be helped through the evaluation and intake process, to determine which services are needed and which programs to plug into, while identifying permanent housing or at least transitional housing. Without affordable permanent housing to move someone into from the emergency shelter, that shelter is going to BECOME the permanent housing! Yet we hear nothing from the County nor from the City about building permanent solutions for affordable homes, and even THOSE get push back from the “don’t devalue my property” crowd.
We know that Utah is handling the crisis with their “housing first” program, which works in Utah but given the high cost of land and development here that is going to be a challenge. Where do we move folks to once they come into the temporary emergency shelter? And how do we keep from becoming the County-wide dumping ground of cities that refuse to take responsibility for their own part in the solution? This issue is HUGE, it is far beyond the ability of charitable programs to solve, and frankly I have zero confidence in those currently in charge.
Sadly, we could use BOTH the Kraemer site AND the Karcher site and still not have enough provision for the need. Why has homelessness increased SO MUCH in the last few years? Yes the economy has tanked, but it doesn’t seem like the folks we are seeing in the parks (with or without dogs on their heels) are the down and out forced to the streets by the economy, we have issues with folks clearly dealing with mental health issues and/or addiction. Now addiction issues can be driven by the new laws booting drug crimes back onto the streets, and I understand that is a big part of Anaheim’s problem. But why the sudden increase in mental health patients off their meds or not getting the right treatments? It’s not like a social or legal environment suddenly increases mental health cases, WHY the sudden enormous leap in the population? Did a mental health program suddenly get defunded? what is the back story? We need to figure out what has created this problem so we can reverse the cause or we are putting band aids on gaping wounds.
There are human beings being discussed here, not some social experiment. Human beings are sleeping on sidewalks and alleys (and apparently rooftops) and human beings are being affected in their own homes by both the shelters and the lack of them. We better get this right. and the ready fire aim stuff from the powers that be doesn’t make me confident. WHAT DO WE DO TO FIX THIS?
“Why has homelessness increased SO MUCH in the last few years?”
People hang onto the edge of the ledge for as long as they can, draining their own resources and those of the people around them. Then, eventually, they fall. It can take time to exhaust all available resources.
As for mental illness, I suspect that many people who are mentally ill aren’t diagnosed while they live in homes, and once out of homes are diagnosed (and probably in some cases misdiagnosed) because such a diagnosis may bring in more funds to be used in dealing with their problems.
The benefits of the recent economic recovery went disproportionately towards those who had never really suffered much (and so could still afford lobbyists to tailor policies.) Well, you know how I’d try to fix that.
Cynthia, I forget that politicians can be “Machiavellian”, and your analysis of the council majority’s intent fits that term. As you say, in most situations they just shove their decisions on us, mostly with the subsidies ones. Perhaps not having secured an alternative site to Karcher yet, left them open to the public scrutiny on this one, something similar to what happened with the Angel’s MOU.
David, in our conversation with Bob he stated that they(APTF) were supremely upset and disappointed when the Karcher site was removed from the discussion.
A rumor circulated over here is that a prominent Disney Democrat residing in central Anaheim and a supporter of Brandman, was instrumental in this action, which may explain why Brandman became the County liaison. They needed to find an alternative site, and a real estate agent based on that part of town, Paul Knotts(?), may have been the one who found Kraemer.
As of today no official explanation has been given as to why that site was removed from the discussion. The council should put the Karcher site back on the discussion.
I think this woman needs to sleep in a dog park from now on.
Uhhhh … Who wrote this?
I’m all for helping the homeless, I’m a self-described liberal after all, just keep them out of Irvine.
Memo to file:
“The Great Dog Park.”
(Needs development.)
Mr. Stalker, what do you think of Jordan Brandman’s silence on the Kring statement about the homeless in parks? Some are already referring to a lack of “testicular fortitude.”
I consider your opinion on this matter insightful.
Jordie and I discussed this while I polished his loafers last week. He agrees with Kring if you do, but says he is appalled if you don’t. Does that clear things up for you Mr. Zenger?
I’d appreciate if you didn’t discuss testicles and Jordan in the same sentence. Are you insinuating that he likes testicles? I won’t stand for this!!! Harumph!!!!!!
OK, I’m going to blow a whistle on this play.
Guys, please do not refer to “testicles” in connect with Councilmember Brandman in future comments on this discussion. It’s not fair to him.
Mr. Stalker,
Now look what you have done. Got me in trouble with the teacher.
Heya, Teach, may we still refer to “testicular fortitude,” you know, as an abstract concept rather than as a specific anatomical reference?
The phrase has been used frequently with respect to our Mayor.
As long as you also use the term “ovarian fortitude” where appropriate*, it is OK.
*It is not appropriate to apply to Jordan.
Jordan was ALL over at the picnic today (love the NEW location Jenifer. The Zoo was dated and gross, it felt like we got a way better group this year). I felt sorry for him, he didn’t fit in or feel comfortable until Julio and Nick (mostly Mr. Perez) hooked him up. He did strike a chord with the families though he was “Clintonesqe” around those with young kids and starter families. I did NOT see Dunn and I missed Lou because we had a clothes emergency!! #Desi’spunch. OUCH.
Why don’t you guys get a booth.
Yes, Jordan got into a photo today with Sharon and Connor and Sukhee. I wonder what events Jordan would take Sharon to.
What is #Desi’spunch?
We have a booth. It’s in the coffee shop.
How did Jordan’s loafers look? I buffed them real good for him Friday.
I would have loved to have been there to carry his bags, but I was on hold with the IRS all day. An award winning investigative reporters job is never done.
Mr. Stalker, please explain this new, weird shoe fetish thing you have. It is quite disturbing.I thought it was all about the mattresses.
Is there something you’d like to get off your chest?