.
.
.
Well, once again I’ve written a long comment that my colleague Greg insists should be its own post. But bear in mind, this is just a REPORT – not one of my works of art! – Vern
Most importantly, Jordan is off OCWD, and replaced by Councilman Vanderbilt, a guy who so far has gotten most of his info on Poseidon and Cadiz from THIS BLOG. Dodged a bullet.
Still, it’s irritating that David I was kept strung along thinking Zenger could get on. Clerk Andal said tonight that there was some policy that it had to be a Councilmember OR a City Employee. She’d told me no such thing before, but to have David send an e-mail to the council.
Oh well, James will be good and Jordan’s gone. Faessel (in about the first thing he’s done so far that I disagreed with) tried to keep Jordan on, because he’s “got a good relationship with OCWD staff” and some other weak reasons.
James, in his usual tradition, vows to refuse all pay for his OCWD work, hoping to set a good example that pubic service should be done for free (which actually some folks can’t afford to do.) Jose half-jokingly asked him to instead accept the pay and give it to a scholarship for a high-school student to study water policy. Don’t know if anything will come of that.
The other interesting thing – Cunningham had fretted on the Klepto-Blog that the divvying up of boards and commissions may (or may not) be an exercise in revenge and retribution, and at some points it did seem a little that way, mostly at the expense of Lucille. She had had four posts, and lost them all. The one she really REALLY wanted to keep was OC Sanitation District. She was on track to be the chair of that board, and claimed that it was important for Anaheim to have someone with the seniority and leadership there, and she made a long list of things she wanted to accomplish on that board. I was practically thinking that *I* would have voted to keep her there.
But Denise INSISTED that SHE wanted that board, and would not be denied, and had the votes of Tom, James and Jose. I asked someone close to her why she was so insistent; that person whispered back to me that “all the shit Lucille just listed, if she was ever really gonna do it she would have already done it by now. We need new people, new ideas.”
Here’s the list:
- Fire Training JPA – was Kring with Vanderbilt alternate; is now MORENO with Vanderbilt alternate.
- 4 Corners Transp. Coalition – was Jordan, is now KRIS MURRAY
- OC HAZMAT Emergency Response Authority – was Kring, is now BARNES
- MWD – was and is still FAESSEL.
- OC Sanitation – was Kring with Vanderbilt alternate, is now BARNES w/ Kring alternate
- OCWD – was Brandman (who showed up hoping to stay on), is now VANDERBILT!
- Santa Ana River Flood Protection – was vacant (previously Jordan) is now MORENO. Alternate was and remains Rudy Emami.
- SCAG – was and remains KRIS MURRAY; alternate was Jordan and is now Kring.
- Transportation Corridor Agency – was Kring, is now MORENO. Alternate was Vanderbilt, is now Kring.
Lucille had a sort of refrain, each time a seat got named off – “That group meets in the DAY a lot” – hoping to scare folks off I think, but not succeeding. She will have a lot of free time in the days now.
And my sad Elton John knockoff about Jordan came true:
“Don’t let the sun go down on me!
Jose Moreno’s face is what I see in District 3.
Just allow me four more years, on the OCWD (nanananana, nanananana)
Cuz losing both those seats is like the sun going down on me!”
***
We also had several dozen folks there from the newly, loosely formed coalition which me and Renee Balenti have taken to calling the “People’s Homeless Task Force,” all with the same basic three demands:
- Repeal the anti-camping ordinance
- Re-open all park restrooms 24-7
- Open safe zones in each Council District for camping. (It being unfair to District 3 and its councilman to concentrate even more poverty there. District 5 has a good possibility by the river/railroad tracks off Ball Road. We’re looking for good places in the other four districts.)
I also asked the Mayor to schedule a special meeting for this issue, but he didn’t.
Jose placed the following on the agenda for the next meeting, Jan. 24:
- Review camping ordinance
- Has it worked?
- Repeal it or not?
- Who exactly are the homeless?
- How the hell do they pay their tickets?
- What happens when they don’t?
- What is the cost to taxpayers of enforcement?
- Study the idea of safe zones, and keeping the bathrooms open.
- ALSO – update on why STR regulations are not being enforced
- Review a 1988 change order resolution that Zenger had come to talk about, which gives Public Works Director huge spending authority.
Denise agendized for Jan. 24:
- Update on parks situation in her district
- Update on Beach Blvd Specific Plan.
Vanderbilt agendized:
- Update on Angels negotiations
- Update on post-six-district neighborhood councils.
The People’s Homeless Task Force will be back in force on the 24th!
Comments that should probably be over here:
Zenger:
“Still, it’s irritating that David was kept strung along.”
Correction, Vern: I wasn’t strung along and have never spoken to the City Clerk about anything. We’ve never met. I just let them know I would do it if they felt like it.
However, before Brandman the job was held by Sidhu who wasn’t on the Council nor was he a City employee. So that statement about “policy” is nonsense, and if she said it, doesn’t reflect very well on the City Clerk or whoever got her to say it.
What I did do last night was inform the council of resolution 88-124, a nasty little hold-over from the 1980s that has been abused by city staff by approving vast change orders on construction projects without having to tell anybody.
The Convention Center Changer Order #1 was for $7,000,000; Change Order #2 (the CATER Bond Delay) was for $6.1MM. Tait knew nothing about them which at the time amazed me. Then I finally was told about this resolution.
Well, they all know about it now and whether they choose to do something about it is their call.
and more Zenger:
Mike Robbins pointed out what some of us have been saying for a long time: the homeless are currently camping along the CalTRANS ROW – up against the chain link fence that cordons off the Karcher Way site.
For crissakes just open the damn gate and make it a “safe zone.”
And Diamond in response to that:
I presume that the city is concern may be about legal liability, if they voluntarily allow people onto the site as opposed to simply using their prosecutorial discretion not to even get them if they are next to the site, for tort damages.
I know that some of my friends will not like to hear me say this, but this is a legitimate concern. The city would not want to put itself on the line to be sued for negligence or worse if someone were injured on the Karcher site, or suffered from hypothermia, or was not able to get medical or police aid in a timely manner, or were raped or molested, etc. If this is what is holding them back, then their position makes some sense.
The problem is that that “sensible” position operates in the service of arrant nonsense: the notion that people should be allowed to live on the street, without the use of restroom facilities, and be much more likely to suffer and die. There could be legal fixes to this, including some notice and waiver provisions that would protect the city from liability for ordinary negligence. Addressing this legal problem is not the “safe “path for the city, but it is the *righteous* path.
I have at least the early glimmerings of an idea that would be even better than that, although it would require legislation.
Let’s face it, Anaheim, and Santa Anna, are paying to solve a problem for which the responsibility should really fall at higher levels: county, state, and even federal. Those cities are doing the rest of the population a big favor, out of their respect – goosed along by citizen-activists – for human life and dignity.
If concern over liability is the problem, then Anaheim and Santa Ana should not have to be the ones to worry about it. Instead the rest of the county, the rest of the state, and the rest of the nation should indemnify those cities against ordinary, and perhaps even gross, negligence! After all, they are receiving a substantial benefit – if you are a moral human being, that is – by being able to shunt their responsibility to care for the downtrodden that they export onto cities who and willing to take a deep breath and try to solve the problem.
I could imagine a system where a community could be exempted from having to participate in indemnification of those cities housing the homeless by agreeing to take certain voluntary measures of their own – hosting homeless shelters themselves, or erecting a certain percentage of actual, seriously, low-cost housing – in which they shoulder their own fair share of the burden.
Those cities that don’t do so should basically understand that they are trusting the city of Anaheim, for example, to deal with this problem as well as it can, on sites such as the Karcher property – and that if Anaheim doesn’t do the job well enough the legal responsibility will fall on the “sideline-sitters” rather than on the communities that did do their best to help.
I’m literally thinking this through as I dictate it into my phone, so any feedback from others here – or, I suppose, elsewhere – would be very welcome. It wouldn’t surprise me if I could be talked out of some or all of this. But, at first blush, this seems to have the characteristics, regarding burden-sharing, that I would expect to see in an effective policy solution.
And, somewhere in Orange, Matt Cunningham plays a sorrowful ode on his violin for Lucille Kring.
Poor poor, Lucille. Our hearts bleed for thee. Thine righteousness, gentleness, and intelligence trampled by vindictive politicians.
I hope all those horrible homeless that Matt reviles so much aren’t sheltering downwind. The bull is extra ripe today!
These are the people who blocked Brian Chuchua from getting an appointment to any City Commission for SIX YEARS out of pure spite. Tough beans for Lucille.
Yay Jordans off the OCWD!!
And I’m glad to have teed it up for you, Chairman! If we don’t cover these meetings, the only review of them will be done by people who don’t deserve the media share.
By the way, re Faessel: sadly, I don’t think that “has a good relationship with the OCWD Staff” is a positive qualification. Their track record has been awfully bad.
Who exactly are the homeless?
The Anaheim Poverty Task Force’s website has an extensive document, although not current in data and options, it is worthwhile to review.
DEFINITION OF “HOMELESS”
“A person is considered homeless when he or she lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and sleeps in a variety of places not fi t for human habitation or meets certain other requirements. Homeless persons include, but are not limited to, those sleeping in:
Cars, parks, campgrounds, sidewalks, railroad tracks, alleys, storm drains, freeway underpasses, abandoned buildings, etc.,
Emergency shelters, or
Transitional housing for homeless persons who originally came from the streets or emergency shelters.”
http://www.anaheimptf.org/uploads/2/3/8/5/23857207/anaheim_5_year_plan_final.pdf
There is so much information and ideas on this urgent and fluid issue. What about creating a kind of Designated Open Thread on Homelessness, like or instead of the OC Civics 101 one?
So much I really want to say, I use to be so active in the homeless population, volunteering in feeding, providing warm clothes… but now i feel so different. I don’t feel what I use to, i can’t justify this homelessness on jobs not being available. I just dont see how being homeless is an option. Plenty of immigrants families, undocumented cram into 2 bedroom apartments, at time infested with roaches in a not so good neighborhood. Both parents working 2 jobs, making it one way or another being paid under the table, cash, no benefits. Yet they are not on the streets.
Being homeless is not an option. Putting your children in a tent is not an option. Why do we see a majority of ethnicity, age ranges, in the homeless community? Young people who don’t want to follow the given rules set by parents, or family members find it easier to be homeless, couch surf, and eventually end up at a shelter. They rather be getting high, or just live with no responsibilities day by day… cause it’s easier that way.
Then you have those with Mental illness who are too high of drugs that make them feel kinda normal, but too high to admit they have to stay sober to take the necessary drugs to make them function “normal”. What we should be doing is trying to change the laws so that those that do have relatives that want to help can, especially when they are too high to make adequate life choices.
Then you have veterans living off the sad assistance they receive that often times find it easier to self-medicate themselves because it is cheaper and easier than going all the way to the VA offices.
All these “affordable housing” they are building all over Anaheim that in reality are not affordable, what are they for? Who are they for?
Instead of shelters should we be trying to figure out how we can make these places affordable especially in a city where a one bedroom in a decent area runs to be about 1,700 a month not including utilities. Is Anaheim just creating more homeless people?
Should i rather than work as hard as i can to provide for my daughters just decide to stay home because i will get more help that way than actually be responsible and give my daughter’s a better life? Continue to pay the rent to an apartment because i myself would never qualify for any of these affordable housing they are building.
The question is, what is the problem? The homeless or is it Anaheim, that wants to make it easier to keep the poor poor on the streets instead of finding a real solution to this bigger problem that is creating a bigger homeless population.
Trying to make it less expensive to live in SoCal is, shall we say, not the most plausible way to fix things. If someone wants a lower cost of living, they can move anywhere from Barstow on east. Knoxville is nice, I hear, and you can get a job at Sam’s Club. If someone isn’t clever enough to figure that out, or would rather live on the street in Anaheim instead of in an apartment or house somewhere more affordable, then to the trains I say!
What a mature and reasonable response… in case you can’t tell I’m being sarcastic… you sound like a fan of the Genocide. The goal isn’t to make people poor and isolate them. The point is we need to find a solution and not create more division. The rich need to stop helping the rich and keeping the poor, poor and the middle class one check from being the poor.
On the “liability issue” I wonder if the Good Samaritan laws would protect those providing shelter? Like you can’t be sued for breaking someone’s ribs while giving them CPR unless you clearly knew you were doing it wrong and did it anyway. I understand this is also an issue for churches, that some are willing to open their fellowship halls as temporary shelters to help the Amory overflow in inclement weather but their liability policies have threatened to shut them down. Not sure how accurate that is, not a first person report by any means, just something shared with me that makes sense. Can the City offer to be the liability umbrella for do-gooders willing to take on some of the civic compassion projects like providing a roof in freezing rain? Go ahead, slip and fall and sue the City, let’s see how far you get. A jury is NOT going to award damages to someone who sued those offering them a compassionate freebie, I don’t care if the City Manager dug a hole and threw you into it himself.
And of course there is the obvious. ARTIC! ARTIC! ARTIC! We have an empty failure of a building, and literally within spitting distance of where the homeless are trying to scramble out of the riverbed before their stuff gets washed out in this rain (with more on the way.) Gee, the Police that are authorized by the City have taken your tent and tarps? I guess you will have to take over some space in the City owned train station that is heated (hot water tubes in the floor create radiant heat, gotta be better than the riverbed even if the floor is tile it isn’t full of rocks and lizards.) and while we have been saying this for OVER A YEAR the City has done NOTHING to actively consider how they might host some temporary visitors in need of shelter in the great big failed project in need of a purpose. PLUS if their diamond in the kleptocracy’s tiara is used to highlight the failure of their project AND the failure to resolve the issues of homelessness in the County, maybe BOTH would get the attention they deserve. I find it bizarre that we cannot adaptively reuse an unused train station BUILT TO TAKE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE PER DAY allegedly coming in on HSR, while waiting to adaptively reuse a warehouse not remotely set up to house ANYONE. If it interferes with those taking the train, move back to the Metrolink station that DIDN’T get between people and the train they are trying to catch, the train will stop wherever they are told to stop, and use the larger space for the shelter until you fix the problem.
I have heard that the homeless populations are a combo of those who CANNOT work or care for themselves (obviously we need a compassionate answer there) those who ARE working in low wage industries like the Resort and cannot afford an apartment …admittedly my conservative self gets weird here because I don’t think we owe anyone a place to live where they WANT to live, if you can’t afford to be here you move to where you can afford. There is a REASON I am here and not overlooking Victoria Harbor on the 4th floor of the Fairmont Empress up on Vancouver Island, and it’s not the air quality after a good Disney pyrotechnics shelling…BUT maybe even there we might have SOME resolution. I don’t like interfering with a labor agreement between employer and employee but maybe we say if you KNOW you are paying your workforce less than you KNOW it costs to rent even a studio in reasonable driving distance, then YOU will offset our cost of enviro mitigation for the cars you are causing to sit on the freeway commuting to where your workers can rent, or the cost of permit parking for neighborhoods doubled up to put a roof over their heads on your paycheck, and other mitigation costs for impacts we KNOW are tied to low wage labor pools, and we will NOT subsidize you in any way while you dump the cost of your workers’ needs on the taxpayers who must bridge the gap. We will help your workforce out of compassion but you will repay us per employee. (Debate?) Of course this would require a study on where the Resort workers live and how they make ends meet and nobody at City Hall has the stones to take that on. Even OCCORD stopped short of making that actual connection despite numerous studies that come close.
…and then there are those who CAN work but choose not to (like a certain street preacher who claims to be “homeless by choice” but failed to set up a missions fund of his supporters to keep from being a bigoted, big mouthed burden on the public, and wants to make homelessness an acceptable alternative lifestyle) and for those seeking a “safe place” to camp simply because they have decided NOT to participate in the societal norms of going to work and paying for their own survival, well any assistance offered should be exchanged with some form of recompense, like cleaning a park bathroom and painting graffiti, (and the first person to claim this would harm union jobs gets it in the kisser.) If you cannot work we will offer compassion. If you work and don’t make ends meet let us see how we might help mitigate that but it is not our responsibility to negotiate a labor contract with an employer unless it is swapped for a public benefit. That is the job of unions, and I have warmed up to them simply because it is a free market answer to demanding pay you can live on without demanding government negotiate on your behalf, but when those industries are represented by a union AND complain that they cannot live on the check their union negotiated for them I scratch my head a bit…but for those who CAN work and have become “homeless by choice” and then demand the taxpayers care for them and provide them a free place to stay and then God knows what else, my answer is HELL NO, we will give you a camp site or other shelter but you will pay for it in some form or not be welcome. Again, I am being a bit cold ONLY to those who have opted into homelessness as an alternative to participating in societal norms of supporting oneself. For tose who CANNOT are for themselves I would do backflips to help, and have raised my kids with the example of helping, quietly and without a photographer and press professional to cover it. There is compassion and then there is being suckered and I think most Americans are all in for one and very opposed to the other and I see no harm in discerning that difference.
OK, I have pissed off a little of everyone now, my work here is done. Good night.
Emery did WHAT to you!?