.
.
.
As the proposed homeless shelter is reaching the final stages of being approved, many neighbors are still reluctant, skeptical or angry. A main reason is that this project continues its route to a resolution as scripted, aimed at providing immediate shelter and a pathway to stop being homeless, without venues to engage the immediate residents in a respectful and productive manner. The last community forum at the Eastside Christian Church on September 30th was a repetition of the same pattern of the first one: minimum dialogue. See the reaction of a resident here.
The traditionally controversial shelter model required a cosmetic sense of public participation, preventing the immediate residents from exercising a meaningful role in a discussion on solutions. The absence of feasible alternatives, according to the experts, may have convinced the policy makers that the shelter is the best solution right now.The predominant role of elected officials has been decisive.
It is commendable that local politicians are addressing homelessness. In the words of one of our council members: “As leaders, we have a moral obligation to serve those in our community who are struggling to meet basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. The homeless population includes children and families, veterans, emancipated foster youth and those who are struggling with mental health and other disabilities.”
These statements are from Kris Murray’s newsletters, which began with this introduction:
“As we continue the public dialogue on a year-round, full-service homeless shelter in Anaheim, through public meetings and a discussion with area residents, business and stakeholders, I hope residents share my desire for this proposed shelter to be the best that exists anywhere in the country.”
Addressing homelessness in a sensible manner could enjoy broad support from the public, if the public is engaged. Most people would be willing to make sure that not only 200 people are off the streets, and given the required assistance, no matter what their condition are. Not only families with children, veterans but also those with behavioral, mental, addiction problems. The shelter could be “the best anywhere in the country”, but you need to involve the immediate neighborhoods.
The proposed Shelter and Multiple Services Center Management and Operation plan, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, have not eliminated the opposition to the shelter, or fully satisfied the concerns of the majority of the nearby residents.
A business owner, from the Canyon area where the shelter will be located, writes the following:
“The LA Times characterized the Canyon as second only to the Irvine Spectrum in the potential to attract high-wage jobs to the area. Now the Anaheim City Council sits silent as the Canyon “Center for Advanced Technology” is trashed in the press by County Supervisor Spitzer calling it “dirty warehouses and a strip club.” Nothing could be further from the truth. But not a word of public response from Mayor Tait or the Anaheim City Council.”
Rio Vista residents describe in a letter, recently sent to Councilmember Vanderbilt, the mini skid-row situation taking place in the rundown shopping center:
“The shopping mall has become a hangout for homeless individuals who use the former Ralph’s breezeway as shelter from the elements. They appear to be openly involved with substance abuse doing what is called a “bong”, without fear or intimidation of police interference as demonstrated by their accumulation of personal property, trash and waste, physical and verbal altercations.
It is especially disappointing to those of us who we grew up in this area, chosen to buy homes in the neighborhood to be close to our aging parents, but can’t allow our parents and children to walk to the shopping mall due to the lack of family friendly shops and the uncertainty of their safety.”
Will Ms Murray meet with these neighbors and hear these type of concerns, or will they be dismissed as heartless NIMBYers? Will she finally live up to her words?:
“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.”
In spite of her contradictory statements and disregard for the neighbors near the shelter, and her overall lack of compassion on the issues determining the well-being of the city as a whole, I salute her commitment to end homelessness. Her compassion and mercy, as expressed below, will hopefully convince herself that homelessness need to be addressed not only in a forgotten area of East Anaheim, but in every district in the county:
“Together we can successfully support the county in this effort and make a genuine difference in the lives of so many in need – who are just waiting for those of us with the ability to show them compassion and mercy.”
Was the dismissal of the Karcher property — a much better location for the homeless population — a show of compassion and mercy? The lack of transparency with what happened with that property and the information that councilmember Brandman was responsible for the change of location, make his statement at the CA-46 debate, of being “proud of the Kraemer plan” distasteful. How could the self-appointed city homeless liaison with the county and candidate for congress, Jordan Brandman, be proud of dismissing a property that was purchased for a homeless shelter and ready to be used much sooner than the odd Kraemer location?
I am most sickened by the fact that this and other homeless services centers are being used as a political football making the services second chair to a candidates political points to be scored. Its just gross.
“Was the dismissal of the Karcher property — a much better location for the homeless population — a show of compassion and mercy?”
The irony: I wonder if Murray or Brandman know that RIGHT NOW even as I type these words some people are inhabiting built tarp shelters smack up against the very gate the City cut into the fence surrounding the Karcher site. Well, I know they don’t know since that would entail actually visiting the site, which for them, I’m sure, is nothing but an abstraction.
Brandman is just a weenie. He’s proud of anything Pringle tells him to be proud of.
As a resident who is 1 mile from the proposed shelter site I am disgusted with the tactics used by the County and surrounding cities in slamming the shelter through over the objections of the residents and businesses that most impacted. The “community forums” were a sham. The residents living in close proximity to the shelter were drown out by activists and people who DO NOT live in the area. We were given 30 seconds to ask questions or make comments…wow. Our voices and our rights are being trampled.
The Operational and Safety plan was not provided to residents before the “community forums”. It is also not been posted (as promised) after the forums. Serious questions regarding how the County and cities of Anaheim and Orange will address issues of the shelters operations and the safety and quality of life of the neighbors and businesses surrounding the shelter cannot be asked or answered without the plan being made public. You can bet the was hastily thrown together and is more about lip service than substance.
There is an empty 3-acre site off Carl Karcher Way that the City of Anaheim bought to house a homeless shelter.
Unless you and your pals lean hard on that simple fact, you are going to get that shelter on Kraemer Place.
Even if we do build the once-expected shelter on Carl Karcher Way, there may still be a need to host a Multiservice Center (which might have some transitional housing for newly dispossessed families) at Kraemer Place. An MSC would not even theoretically bring about any of the harms that critics of the current project suppose.
The Kraemer Place location makes no sense for the homeless, period. An MSC separated from a shelter doesn’t do it, either.
Homeless advocates must step away from the “something is better than nothing” perspective. The greedheads are using it and don’t care if they create a horrible mistake. But that sort of mistake could do serious damage to addressing the issue in the long run.
The fact that Brandman is “proud” of it (what an inappropriate word, BTW – maybe “statisfied” “hopeful” “positive” “enthusiastic”) suggests its political expediency and practical uselessness.
I don’t agree with this.
Something is indeed better than nothing. This is hardly “something”. It’s a pretty significant step in the right direction.
This needs to be built. It needed to be built five years ago.
Ryan, making a mistake here could do irreparable harm to the homeless cause. It’s the wrong place and it’s amazingly expensive – two very good reason for dropping the Kraemer site and going back to the original plan – Karchrer.
Success is way more important than the gesture.
Sorry but I no longer believe the politicians spinning this thing have any intention of aiding the homeless at Kraemer or anywhere else. The presence of Cunningham, who has been stirring the pot HARD for months (actually being relatively effective in his chosen career for once) is the only proof we need that the whole thing is a dog and pony show.
Set up the promise of a shelter. Let your buddy collect money while riling up the locals as an excuse to drop the shelter. Fail to silence the buddy who runs the opposition, despite holding the purse strings of the biggest contract the keyboard-for-hire appears to retain in the post-bear-i-cide blogosphere. Use opposition drummed up by your on the take buddy as reason to “hear our constituents” and be the heroes, while miraculously cultivating a whole new segment of the business community not previously known for their check writing ability in the local campaign scam.
AND they still get credit for their “compassion” because they TRIED to help the homeless. I don’t want to be this cynical, I don’t like seeing it in myself at all. But unless that band of pretenders prove me wrong this is the working theory for now.
That sums it up pretty well. Lots of disingenuous behavior all around, but, hey, it’s Anaheim.
I think the semi-literate Wordsmith has been hard at work double-crossing the shelter opposition. Still, at this point I am less convinced than I was that the Kraemer property won’t be bought by the County. I figured the Anaheim Kleptos would have rallied around the homeowners by now, and left the dope Spitzer holding the bag. I think I might have misjudged their attachment to the Kraemer site.
Somebody wants that 3 acres off Karcher Way very, very badly.
It still amazes me the influence he has over neighbors concerned about what a shelter means. He could’ve played a positive role in finding a satisfactorily mutual outcome for the residents and the homeless.
He had the connections with key players, starting at the city level (Murray, Brandman, Chamber of Commerce) and the county GOP. He had burnt his bridges with Nelson and Spitzer, but nevertheless he went on with a confrontational course against their project. He played into the designed plan of shutting off the residents.
His website has now a “gofundme” campaign.
I can think of a different four letter word to follow “go” to put on his website . . .
” An MSC would not even theoretically bring about any of the harms that critics of the current project suppose.”
A press release by the President of Visual Support Inc, Don Dormeyer, located in the Canyon area, points out what he sees as flaws in the shelter plan :
” The proposed homeless shelter sounds good (24/7/365 and up to 180 days of free food, clean beds and activities (read the plan, it is 180 days max not 30) This should get a lot of attention which means more homeless will come to sunny Orange County. Many from LA which has an abundant supply.
San Francisco is suing Nevada for paying homeless and mental patients to go to Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Now Nevada, and Los Angeles, can save money and legally encourage them to come to Anaheim just by publicizing the free room and board in the “City of Kindness”.
The policy of only pre-qualified persons being allowed entry to the shelter sounds very good but when non-qualified indigents show up at the gate of their own free will, how can you legally make then leave the area? Where do they go. Rest at a Steinway in the piano store? Join the kids at nearby Camelot Amusements? Welcome clients to the Center for Advanced Technology? How can you make them go elsewhere if they came of their own free will?
5 to 10 % of the shelter beds are reserved for those brought in at night by the police. This rewards bad activity. Offenders can “Jump the line” and be rewarded with a warm bed and free food. All they have to do is be a problem, or commit some “minor vandalism” like breaking windows, to get the police called.
Will the County help Anaheim if one or more of the Canyon businesses takes legal action based on Anaheim’s Canyon Specific Plan’s statement “To provide CERTAINTY to businesses and developers” that the Canyon Center for Advanced Technology would be a “Center for Advanced Technology”. MANY of the 2600 Canyon businesses may eagerly join in a class action lawsuit.
The LA Times characterized the Canyon as second only to the Irvine Spectrum in the potential to attract high-wage jobs to the area.
Now the Anaheim City Council sits silent as the Canyon “Center for Advanced Technology” is trashed in the press by County Supervisor Spitzer calling it “dirty warehouses and a strip club.” Nothing could be further from the truth. But not a word of public response from Mayor Tait or the Anaheim City Council.
The county’s negative mitigation report states, the proposed shelter “is NOT the required 1000 ft from residential housing.”
The Santa Ana River is very, very popular with homeless and transients who regularly use it and its tributaries and bridges for shelter, rest, encampments and for travel through the heart of Orange County.
A flood channel runs past the proposed shelter, under the 91 freeway, (Which provides shelter) directly to the residences on Frontera Street and the riverbed. That indigent route is less that the round-about-route the County used to get the result they wanted to report. Less than the required 1000 ft and indigent routes are the reason for the 1000 ft requirement from Homeless shelters.
Sex offenders and open warrant felons will not be admitted to the shelter. But their friends without open warrants will, so sex offenders and felons can hang around the neighborhood or sleep in cars waiting for their friends in the shelter.
With no way to mitigate it, this shelter plan will attract indigents from far and wide, often assisted by distant communities seeking to ship their problem citizens to the “City of Kindness”. Kind to whom? Not the hard working, tax paying, residents, and businesses of Anaheim or North Orange.
Maybe Instead of millions going to buy and renovate a building to warehouse humans waiting for services that are under-funded and overloaded, why not invest directly in those services. Medical, psychiatric, addiction recovery, and job training for those who want it. Coordinated from rented storefronts or mobile vans where the homeless already live. Spend the money on actually helping those who want help.”