“Liberal” L.A. and Scrooge-heavy Santa Cruz?

Notes by Norse:  One story does not make a saga and the LAPD are not known for a kindler gentler treatment of homeless people there.  Whether the L.A. Times is doing damage control for the LAPD after its recent court losses is unclear to me.  But they’re certainly ahead of Santa Cruz with its fencing off of under-the-bridges sanctuaries, stay-away orders from parks, & ongoing attacks on homeless survival sleepers.

In L.A., we have seen recent court victories by the ACLU, attorney Carol Sobel, and homeless activists throwing out the City’s anti-homeless “no living in a vehicle” law.  In Santa Cruz, vehicle-dwelling Kate Wenzell (“the scarf lady) was mercilessly pursued by Officer “Bumbasher” Barnett and other SCPD sleepsnatchers–with charges finally being dismissed many months later after a campaign of intimidation.

The Desertrain decision is currently going to an en banc panel for review at the behest of a reactionary judge.  It does not directly overturn Santa Cruz’s “sleep after 11 in your vehicle, get a $157 citation; do it three times, face a year in jail and $1000 fine” law–MC 6.36.010a.

Unhoused Santa Cruz’s under assault by the SCPD and Parks and Recreation continue to report ongoing ticketing, “move on to nowhere” harassment, and property seizure.  A local ACLU proposal for a moratorium on all camping and sleeping citations at night hasn’t even gotten to City Council here due to more stalling from ACLU’s anti-homeless chair Peter Geldblum and the timidity of the Pleich majority on the Board.  

City and county bureaucrats running the “Downtown Accountability Project” DAP (or Downtowners Against the Poor, as I call it) have yet to respond to Public Records Act requests.  These seek specific information on the particular “offenses” being targeted under the “100 Chronic Offenders” program.  This program is backed up by heightened security guard intimidation, “friendly fascism” from the ever-smiling “Hosts”, and back-up by packs of armed police officers who cluster quickly to deal with a yelling rebel,  but reportedly  decline to take complaints from homeless people.   

The DAP program with a phony compassionate funding and zero money for long-term housing is being used to clear downtown Santa Cruz of homeless-looking people caught in the tripwire of anti-homeless laws and enforcement practices while easing the conscience of those wondering what happened to the old Santa Cruz.

Can L.A. be more “progressive” than Santa Cruz?  Or have attorneys there with guts grabbed the city’s bigots by the balls knowing their “hearts and minds” will shortly follow?

Homeless activists and victims have begun appearing at City Council’s 5 PM “Oral Communications” period with video cameras, cell phones, and strong testimony.  At the last such protest, armed SCPD mediamasher John Bush confiscated four tape recorders and stopped an audible recording of the meeting under orders apparently from Mayor Lynn “Run em Out” Robinson.

Another such protest is slated for Tuesday July 22nd at 4:30 PM (809 Center St.).  Bring your friends.

L.A. leaders are crafting new plan to help homeless on skid row

Skid row homelessness

In their latest census, Los Angeles police counted more than 1,700 people living in tents and cardboard boxes in the 50-block skid row area. Above, people sit and walk on South San Pedro Street. (Jabin Botsford / Los Angeles Times)

Continue reading

Palo Alto Vehicle Habitation Law suspended; 9th Circuit Spanks L.A. City Attorney

NOTES BY NORSE:  The audio of the 9th Circuit Court hearing which punches the L.A. City attorney in the chops in the case of Cheyenne Desertrain, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al,   can be heard at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000012040  It’s a rare opportunity to hear the slitherings, slippings, and slidings of a city attorney directly challenged–not by the defense lawyer Carol Sobel, but by the actual judges themselves who pin the tail squarely on the donkey by clarifying the specifically anti-homeless focus on the enforcement actions.

                Santa Cruz has used a variety of devices to muffle, buffer, and mask the anti-homeless intent–in the process creating potential criminalization for everyone in the interests of appearing impartial.  So it’s not just panhandlers, but anyone with a sign who faces a ticket and potentially jail for standing on a median or roundabout with any kind of sign (including a constitutionally protected sign).  The night-time curfews in the parks, around the library, at the City Hall complex, and around the police station are designed to frighten homeless people away, but also impact everyone, particularly political protesters.    The infamous only-in-Santa-Cruz (at the time of passage in 2003) “Move Along-Every-Hour” law targeted seated panhandlers, but had to be framed more generally so that it took in political protesters, voter registrars, musicians, performers, and anyone with a “display device.”
This year, the cover for homeless-o-phobia is “public safety” with anyone who challenges security thugs in the parks (1 day stay away or up to 1 year in jail).  The notorious Sidewalk Shrinkage law which expanded the 14′ forbidden-to-sit zones “protecting” benches, buildings, crosswalks, kiosks, phone  booths, sculptures, trash compactors, and trash cans (to name only some of the new sacred items) does seem to be a broader aesthetic attack on performers of all sorts (Morgami the colorful accordionist and Mr. Twister the balloon clown excepted–though that’s not written into the law).  However since many of those performing, displaying artwork, or showing crafts are unhoused or poor people struggling to make it, the intent of the law is pretty clear.
The expansion of smoking bans this year and in prior years to cover situations when people aren’t complaining is another example–homeless people smoke at about 3 to 4 times the rate of housed people.  Most recently, the new Public Assembly Constriction laws, requiring costs for street closures and permits for smaller numbers of people, makes it more difficult for poor people and spontaneous protests.   Many of which have been homeless-themed in the past, considering the City’s abhorrent Sleeping and Blanket Bans (as well as its other laws and practices targeting the visible poor outside).
Meanwhile Palo Alto activists are rightly celebrating the City’s delay in enforcing the “live in van, go on the lam” law, but the majority of those outside there have no such luxury.  Laws passed shortly after the vehicle habitation ban criminalized being around community centers at night–the traditional sleeping spots of many ground sleepers.  When I asked Palo Alto activist Chuck Jagoda if action against that law was on the activist agenda, he said no.
In Santa Cruz, some are organizing to address the lack of warming centers on cold weather winter days–and good for them for doing so!–but the broader and deeper issue is the destruction of homeless campsites, the seizure and trashing of homeless property, and the reduction of homeless people to the status of trash–that goes on 365 days a year here.

 http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/17/car-camping-ban-put-to-bed-for-a-year

Car-camping ban suspended for a year

Legal concerns prompt Palo Alto to delay enforcement of controversial law

by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly

 

Faced with citizen anxieties, threatened lawsuits and a pending court case in southern California, Palo Alto officials agreed on Monday to delay for a year the city’s deeply controversial ban on vehicle habitation.

 

 

The City Council voted unanimously to approve a staff recommendation to delay enforcement of the ban, which the council officially adopted on Sept. 19 and which was scheduled to kick off in February.

 

 

The ban, which was prompted by a swell of car campers at Cubberley Community Center and in a section of College Terrace, was adopted despite heated opposition from homeless advocates and members from the faith community. Last month, a coalition of attorneys led by Carrie LeRoy announced its intention to sue the city over the ban and requested a meeting with City Attorney Molly Stump to discuss their concerns. LeRoy argued in a Nov. 15 letter to the city that the ban is too broad and too punitive, that it violates the U.S. Constitution and that it would effectively criminalize homelessness.

 

 

“Enforcement of the VHO (vehicle habitation ordinance) will exacerbate serious health issues and disabilities prevalent among Plaintiffs, who will be forced out of their vehicles or Palo Alto altogether to avoid criminal liability,” LeRoy wrote.

 

 

The council’s decision on Monday to delay the ban squashes the controversy for at least a year. In a memo released last week, City Manager James Keene pointed to a case currently going through the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. That case, Cheyenne Destertrain v. City of Los Angeles, revolves around the issue of vehicle habitation. The appeals court has recently heard the arguments in this case and staff believes its decision “may provide further clarification regarding legal requirements governing ordinances prohibiting vehicle habitation.”

 

 

The letter also noted that the council has already taken another step to address the transformation of Cubberley into what officials often refer to as an “ad hoc homeless shelter.” In August, the council adopted a new law ordering that all community centers, including Cubberley, be closed between 10:30 p.m. and sunrise. Thus, the lawyers contended, the new law serves no legitimate purpose.

 

 

In the memo, Keene pointed to the Los Angeles case and noted “some members of the public have questions regarding the scope of the ordinance, which suggests that an additional period of outreach and review would be beneficial.”

 

 

The council approved the delay unanimously as part of its “consent calendar,” with no discussion or argument. The only people who spoke out on the issue were a handful of public speakers who opposed the ban. One speaker, Lois Salo, urged officials to go a step further and rescind the ban. Others said they were pleased to see the prohibition delayed, even if it’s just for a year. Edie Keating from the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto was among them.

 

 

“Many members of the community appreciate your willingness to keep this open for up to a year,” Keating told the council. “There will be a need to find a solution so that we aren’t in the same place at some future point in time. Many people are already talking about what the possible solutions could be.”

San Jose: Four people die of exposure overnight, three of them at homeless encampments

 

By Mark Emmons

memmons@mercurynews.com

 

Posted:   12/06/2013 02:36:23 PM PST


The Santa Clara County coroner’s office confirmed four people died of hypothermia-related causes Thursday night as temperatures plunged below freezing.

Sources say that three of the people died of exposure in three separate homeless encampments while a fourth person died in a garage during the cold snap.

The coroner’s office declined further comment early Friday afternoon. The Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services referred questions to a county spokesperson, who did not immediately return phone calls.

“I’m just angry,” said Jenny Niklaus, the CEO of EHC LifeBuilders, a provider of homeless services. “We have to solve this problem. Even with our cold-weather shelters open, there are still people out there. This is what happens when we allow homelessness to happen. People die.”

A line forms outside the National Guard Armory, Sunnyvale, one of the cold-weather shelters that opened this week; 2009 photograph. (Josie Lepe, Mercury News)

Temperatures throughout the greater San Jose area reached a low in the mid-20s in the overnight hours, according to the National Weather Service. The low at Mineta San Jose International Airport was 30 degrees, breaking the previous Dec. 6 record of 32 degrees in 1931.

More freezing weather is expected later this weekend.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Mike Wasserman, who has been an advocate of funding programs that help get chronically homeless into permanent housing, said the deaths are just the latest example of the seriousness of the problem.

“People are dying out there, and it’s just wrong,” Wasserman said. “I hope to god this never happens again. You have to understand that every single person in these encampments is somebody’s son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father. And yet they’ve been just abandoned.”

EHC LifeBuilders opened up its county-funded Cold Weather Shelter Program last Monday night with 275 emergency beds at three sites in advance of the cold snap. After these deaths, an additional 200 to 300 temporary beds were being added. Also, the shelters will remain open for additional two hours in the morning.

Outreach workers from the agency as well as other local nonprofits InnVision Shelter Network, the Bill Wilson Center and Downtown Streets Team spent Friday combing the encampments, parks and streets as they handed out blankets and encouraged people to go to the shelters.

“We’ve got a cold weekend ahead of us and our goal is make sure nobody has to be outdoors,” Niklaus said. “But the fact is there are more people outside than we have beds. We’re doing what we can, and I don’t want to lose any more people. This is a crisis.”

San Jose/Santa Clara County has the fifth-largest homeless population in the country behind only New York City, Los Angeles, Seattle and San Diego, according to a recent U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report.

Of the 7,631 homeless, who were counted in January as part of a nationwide census, 74 percent were listed as “unsheltered” — meaning they have no place suitable for human habitation to stay. It has been estimated that on any given night, there are 5,000 people outside in the county.

Evening temperatures in San Jose were expected to warm up Friday night and then drop back to around 30 degrees on Saturday night, according to the National Weather Service.

“The question we have to ask ourselves is how many people have to do die?” said Jennifer Loving, executive director of the nonprofit Destination: Home. “It’s cold outside and people can’t survive when it’s freezing. That’s just a fact. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.”

The deaths are a sad reminder of just how dangerous it is to be homeless. On Dec. 19, EHC LifeBuilders will hold its annual memorial ceremony remembering those who have died on the streets over the past year. Niklaus believes the total will be more than 40 this year.

 

COMMENTS

NOTE FROM NORSE:  Chuck Jagoda, whose letter is included below, is a Palo Alto activist struggling–as any of us in Santa Cruz struggled two decade ago to open up the Armory as emergency shelter in the winter–though it served (and serves now) only a fraction (100) of the homeless community here (1500-2000).   In Santa Cruz, it’s also a costly psuedo-solution, run by the military which prohibits support animals, doesn’t allow users to come in later in the evening if they have jobs, doesn’t allow conjugal activity, can’t be driven to directly, and is essentially one big room filled with 50-100 people on cots–which can be difficult when some are ill and some are Vets with PTSD.
The Homeless (Lack of) Services Center has recently been misinterpreting MC 6.36.055, which requires dismissal of camping tickets if one is on the waiting list of two always-filled shelters or if the armory is filled.  Instead, I was told last week that being on the waiting list does not give you automatic dismissal of the $156 citations–as it has before the Armory opened.  Instead the Armory must have been full that night–which is often only the case on rainy or cold nights.  Harsher policies being followed by the city attorney in the wake of homeless-ophobia by groups like Take Back Santa Cruz have prompted misdemeanor prosecutions if more than three tickets are left unpaid for–with a fine of up to $1000 and a jail term of up to 1 year.   These are terrorist tactics, used to appease bigots, who feel that harsher policies will make Santa Cruz “less welcome” and “less enabling” to homeless people, who, they mistakenly believe, flock to Santa Cruz to use drugs, steal, and harass customers and merchants downtown.

  I have a dim view of the Armory, though I risked ail two decades ago to get it open.  It is used instead of opening up buildings or campgrounds that would be much cheaper and more convenient.   Under the incoming Mayor Robinson, who has asserted her hostility to homeless civil rights and homeless services and after the Council’s acceptance of the Public Safety Task Force, things are likely to get worse.


From: cruiserterry@aol.com
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:42:33 -0500

I remember the armory like it was yesterday.
Stood in line there. Spent Christmas there.
Some nights we would be turned away after being in line for hours.
It was so cold at night I was thankful to have a car to sleep in.
I had to sleep sitting up because of my two kids.
It was soooo cold I would waste a little gas to keep the car warm.
Diane

Sent: Fri, Dec 6, 2013 6:37 pmSubject: Fwd: San Jose: Four people die of exposure overnight

Yet Sunnyvale’s armory shelter–in which homeless would NOT have frozen to death and the 150 safe, warm shelter beds inside the armory–is set to be destroyed after this winter.

It is to be “replaced” by 47 “permanent” (which means as long as the residents have left after years of homelessness) housing.  This is a pure joke.  No one is buying or renting or living in the other “permanent housing” that has been built near the armory.  At night from the armory parking lot you can see the rows upon rows of dark windows–no one is in those homes.  What makes anyone thinks 47 more units will house presently homeless people there?  And even if that does happen, what about the 100 presently homeless who will no longer have a place to sleep in the winter?  (Assuming 47 will be in the permanent housing that will “replace” the armory)

There is nothing wrong with building permanent housing, using a Housing First approach, or making more permanent housing available to unsheltered people.  All are great ideas.

What is VERY wrong is the destruction of viable temporary shelter.  Does anyone think that such shelter won’t be needed next winter?  If such a person exists (pay attention Housing, Homeless, and other officials) thinks so, let him/her answer this?  If three houseless folks died WITH the alternative of an armory, how many do you think will die WITHOUT that protection?

From someone who’s been homeless in Santa Clara County for four years to anyone who cares about the survival of unhoused people–please do not continue to subtract temporary shelter opportunities until and unless there are no homeless people still alive who need them.  

The promise of permanent housing is a wonderful thing–and a long road–and a government promise.  I remember other government promises–like Urban Renewal, fifty years ago.  It really turned out to be Urban Removal–as perfectly viable neighborhoods (at least in some cases) were destroyed and nothing was built to replace them.

As one Holocaust survivor put it–“You don’t throw out dirty water until you have clean water.”  That is survival mode.  That is what unsheltered people live in–survival mode. Do you know that homeless people die at four times the rate of non-homeless?  Did four housed people freeze to death in Santa Clara County while these four homeless people did? I didn’t read about it and I doubt it happened

None of the officials who so easily talk about permanent housing for 47 people as justification or even explanation for destroying the 150 shelter beds at the armory–I very much doubt that any of them would give up their present lodging for a PROMISE of permanent shelter at some future, unspecified, date.  Yet that is the plan they actually, publicly are trying to sell.  

Please don’t ask us to accept a bad bargain none of you would look at twice if it involved you or your loved ones

–Chuck Jagoda

Hope and Positive Reporting: A Rare Commodity in the Media

NOTES BY NORSE:  The two stories below come as a welcome but unusual respite from the flood of anti-homeless propaganda, police vitriol, and drug war dirt used to smear those outside locally.  A long series of interesting and spirited comments unlike the usual troll detritus on the Sentinel website follows the article profiling the Felton homeless folks at  http://pressbanner.com/view/full_story/23916689/article-The-experience-of-the-homeless-in-Felton?instance=home_news_bullets#cb_post_comment_23916689   There you can read “Take Back Santa Cruz”–Felton-style bigots getting corrected by the homeless people they are smearing.  Quite provocative.  A little favorable publicity can go a long way.

Homeless turn overnight California bus route into ‘Hotel 22’

By Mark Emmons, San Jose Mercury News
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_24433523/homeless-turn-overnight-california-bus-route-into-hotel

Posted:   11/01/2013 07:43:43 AM PDT

People wait to board the No. 22 VTA bus at about 1:20 a.m. morning, October 25. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)

ABOARD VTA BUS 22 — Sylvia Hernandez bundled up with extra clothing from her small pull cart and prepared to join the other dozen people trying to doze on the bumpy ride between East San Jose and Palo Alto, Calif. It’s still early, she said. Just wait.

“Later, it will completely be full of homeless people,” Hernandez said.

By midnight, the transformation from public bus into “Hotel 22”³ was well under way — and among the growing number of no-place-to-call-home riders was a father and his 10-year-old daughter.

“We don’t have a place to stay,” said the man, who wouldn’t give their names, but said they had spent nights this way for five months. “From early evening to morning, we’re on the bus.”

Line 22, the only bus route that runs 24 hours in the Santa Clara (Calif.) Valley Transportation Authority system, becomes an unofficial shelter each night, a mobile testament both to the resourcefulness of the region’s homeless and the agonizing challenge of finding shelter in pricey Silicon Valley.

Weary riders can start at the Eastridge Transit Center and travel for two-plus hours to the end point at the Palo Alto Transit Center. There, they wait for a return bus, and then maybe make the round trip again. Somehow, they manage to nod off despite the herky-jerky motion and lights coming on with each stop as an automated voice announces the location.

“The bus says to me that people are so desperate that they will ride it all night,” said Jenny Niklaus, the CEO of the nonprofit EHC LifeBuilders. “Think about it: We are in such a state of crisis that people are eager to ride a bus, and it’s been that way for years.”

One early morning last week, an older woman, who would identify herself only as Angel, said being a Hotel 22 rider comes down to simple survival skills.

“The bus,” she said, “is safety.”

The complex problem of homelessness is a hot-button issue in Silicon Valley at a time when the high-tech economy continues to fuel the expensive
home and rental markets — widening the divide between haves and have-nots.

A 2012 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development report highlighted how the South Bay has become a front line to the homeless quandary not only here in the Bay Area, but nationally as well. It found that San Jose and Santa Clara County had the nation’s highest percentage of unsheltered homeless as well as the third-highest number of chronically homeless.

Using data from another census, conducted in January, it was estimated that 19,063 people in the county would experience homelessness this year. The survey found that 27 percent of homeless said they had been turned away from an emergency shelter in the previous 30 days — usually because of a lack of beds.“There are 5,000 homeless on any given night, and we just don’t have enough housing for all of them,” said Ray Bramson, San Jose’s homelessness response team manager.

That explains Hotel 22.

The line is VTA’s longest and busiest route, ferrying about 20 percent of the system’s overall bus ridership. In the overnight hours, three buses make the meandering trip that runs from East San Jose, through downtown, onto the El Camino Real corridor into Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View and finally Palo Alto — before heading back.

VTA officials make clear that homeless have just as much right to ride as anyone as long as they obey the rules such as no smoking, eating or drinking.

“We serve the public, and that includes anybody who has the need for transportation and has the ability to pay,” said Greta Helm, the VTA’s chief external affairs officer. “If people present a valid fare, there’s no reason to dispute them boarding.”

A one-way fare costs $2, but monthly passes can be purchased for $70, and VTA also has a program offering some free, quarterly transit passes to homeless and those in risk of losing their housing. So the Hotel 22 is a relative bargain in high-cost Silicon Valley.

As night stretched into early morning last week, late-shift workers and club-hoppers who mostly stared at their smartphones thinned out. They largely were replaced by people using the bus to catch some sleep rather than reach a destination. More were men than women, and the ages of all tended to skew older.

“This bus has all kinds of names, like Hotel 22 or some just call it ‘Life on the 22,’ ” said Tony Velgara, a bus operator. “These usually are nice people, but they’re just dealing with hard times. They’re just like anybody else.”

Hernandez, 52, sat near the front where she could stay close to her cart containing possessions. Hernandez said she has been homeless two years since losing her disability compensation, splitting nights between what she described as “benches” and Bay Area public transportation.

“People think it’s easy finding a place to stay, but in a bad economy, it’s very difficult to even get into a shelter,” Hernandez added. “And the winter shelters aren’t going to be opening for another month, and it’s going to begin to rain soon.”

When passengers disembarked in Palo Alto, they only had to wait a few minutes before climbing on a San Jose-bound bus. On this trip, the father slept sitting up in a back corner. His daughter was lying over three seats, covered in a blanket, a backpack serving as a pillow.

The father was uncomfortable revealing details about their lives. But he did say that he’s 40, has been unemployed and that he and his daughter, who is in fifth grade, are on a family shelter waiting list.

“She’s managing, much better than I ever expected,” the father said after waking her as the bus reached Eastridge at about 1:45 a.m. “I have no idea how she’s doing it. This is one of her best years so far in school.”

The girl, acting like a Hotel 22 veteran, had joined a large group of people gathering for another journey toward Palo Alto — a mixture of newcomers and those who had made the previous round trip.

“Daddy, the bus is coming!” she shouted in a voice both urgent and tired.

As it left the station, the Hotel 22 nearly was full.

“In the morning,” the father had said before boarding, “she’ll get on the bus for school.”

The experience of the homeless in Felton
Jeffrey Scofield, Rob Ropes, Jonney Hughes, and Linda Miller discuss their experiences living homeless in Felton. Joe Shreve/Press-Banner

Jeffrey Scofield, Rob Ropes, Jonney Hughes, and Linda Miller discuss their experiences living homeless in Felton. Joe Shreve/Press-Banner

The topic of homelessness in Felton is not exactly a new one, but in the past several months, it has become something of a hot topic as local community groups and organizations have made a priority of addressing the environmental and societal concerns associated with homelessness and homeless encampments.

In the wake of some extensive coverage of the efforts of the political and community organizations, a group of homeless agreed to meet with the Press-Banner on Tuesday, Oct. 8 to share their own experiences of being homeless in Felton.

“I never dreamed I’d be homeless,” said Jonney Hughes, a woman in her early fifties who described herself as being retired and on disability. “There’s all kinds of reasons people are out here.”

Hughes said that she found herself without a home in 2003, when she was suddenly widowed.

For the next five years, she said, she camped in many different places in the Santa Cruz Mountains and found herself accepted into what she described as a tight-knit family of fellow homeless people.

“They took care of me,” Hughes said. “You just don’t have any of the things you need to have, so everybody looks out for everybody.”

Hughes said that while she has lived in a fifth-wheel camper since 2008, she still maintains regular ties with her homeless friends.

“I still come here every day,” she said. “I love these people.”

Linda Miller, 54, originally hails from Virginia, but has lived in the Felton area for the past 9 years, living with her boyfriend, Rob Ropes, in his recreational vehicle — parking it wherever he can find a safe place.

Miller, a retired nursing assistant, said that she is currently on disability and found herself homeless 20 years ago in the wake of a messy divorce.

David Paul, an unemployed woodworker, has camped in the Felton wilderness since early August. He said he had been living with his brother — who has a home in the area — for several months after moving from Colorado in search of work.

While he has not been homeless in the area as long as the others, it is not his first time being homeless, either.

“I’ve done it before in Colorado,” he said. “I’ve gone through this before.”
 
‘One of these days, they could be right where we’re at.’
All of the homeless people interviewed said that they are all too aware of the spotlight cast on them, and negative reputation associated with them, in recent months.

Many said that they feel as though they are being unfairly assigned blame for issues raised by the community — such as littering, drug abuse, and aggressive panhandling.

Often, they said, issues arise when mentally ill people from local treatment facilities are mistaken for homeless people, or new — often younger — homeless people come to the area and do not understand the rules followed by the established homeless community.

“We try to police our own people,” Hughes said. “You’ve got a lot more younger (homeless), and it’s up to the older ones to teach the younger ones.”

Ropes said that most of the homeless in the area are just trying to eke out a living, and described the idea of drug abuse as “ludicrous.”

Ari Stines, a younger homeless man agreed.

“Most of the people who can afford drugs are in downtown (Santa Cruz),” he said.

Hughes said that, as far as littering goes, recycling is often the primary source of income for homeless people, and they “recycle everything they can get a hold of.”

Ropes, who has to frequently move his recreational vehicle due to lack of a legal place to park it, said he is often harassed — even when the RV was parked at an auto shop with a work order invoice attached to it.

“We don’t do drugs, we don’t panhandle, and we don’t beg,” Ropes said. “All I want to do is be left alone.”

While Paul acknowledged that a few bad apples occasionally appear, he said that most homeless people are just trying to make the most of a bad situation and the spotlight falls on the homeless because “you’re so much in the open here.”

“The people that are willing to help themselves aren’t the problem,” Paul said. “(The ones that aren’t), they just get to a point where they just go underground.”

Miller said that she was often upset by what she sees as a lack of communication and understanding between the homeless and the community.
“It really upsets me,” she said. “One of these days, they could be right where we’re at.”

‘I wish we could find a place’
The reality of the situation in Felton, Hughes said, is that with crackdowns on camping on private property, such as the closure of the Felton Meadow property by Mount Hermon, have concentrated the homeless into a few places.

“The bottom line is, where do they want the homeless to go?” she said.

Paul, who is a member of the Felton Reboot group working to clean up downtown Felton, said that he and other homeless were trying to get involved in dialogue with community members.

“Some of us are trying to do some outreach,” he said. “We’re trying to put our best foot forward.”

He said that the homeless needed to acknowledge the community’s concerns as much as vice versa.

“They have valid concerns,” Paul said. “You can’t discount people — otherwise, it’s just a wall between us.”

Ropes said that he, and others, have paid rent to down-on-their-luck homeowners who are willing to let homeless camp on their property, but that always comes with the fear of bringing a red tag down from the county.

“I paid $10,000 for this RV,” he said. “I have some money; I’d be happy to pay rent.”

Hughes, who herself lives in a fifth-wheel trailer, said that one day, she’d like to see a place set aside for homeless people to camp, and not put homeowners at risk by renting to homeless.

“We’re worried we’re going to get (the homeowners) in trouble,” Hughes said. “I wish I could find a place where homeless could go.”

Homeless Encampments in Fresno–the Mainstream Media & the Advocate Response

Fresno Bee Editorial

October 24, 2013
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/10/23/3568717/editorial-illegal-camps-are-cleared.html

EDITORIAL: Illegal camps are cleared, but Fresno homeless need shelter
City should set up temporary camp for those awaiting housing.
Evidence of the gaping hole in Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin’s plan to deal with rampant homelessness can be seen all over the city.
Homeless people are living behind businesses, along freeways and on the San Joaquin River bottom. Some are squatting in vacant homes and garages. During the day, they panhandle for cash and congregate near parking-lot recycling centers, where they turn in cans, bottles and cardboard for money.
The Swearengin administration is doing the right thing by clearing out the illegal homeless encampments downtown. These encampments were unsanitary and unsafe and created intolerable conditions for nearby residents and businesses.
The mayor’s goal of helping the homeless gain independence through “housing first” is also laudable. This strategy provides immediate housing to individuals for stability and then attempts to treat the causes that put them on the streets.
Swearengin deserves credit, too, for launching Fresno First Steps Home, which provides funding to nonprofits and agencies helping the homeless.
But there’s a fatal flaw in her homeless plan: housing is expensive and limited, and Fresno has an estimated 4,000 homeless. With the closing of the illegal encampments, most of them are left with nowhere to go but the street.
We recognize the city’s stressed finances. But skilled leadership can move mountains at bargain rates. The mayor should assemble a team of city staff, homeless advocates and community leaders to set up a temporary emergency camp.
The camp should have rules, toilets, wash areas and security. It must be fenced and located in an area without adjacent businesses and homes. Most of all, it should be temporary.
Long term, Fresno needs a permanent, dormitory-style place for homeless waiting to transition into housing.
San Antonio, Texas, for example, has the 37-acre Haven for Hope, a nonprofit facility that can house up to 1,500 men, women and children.
Haven for Hope’s greatest asset perhaps is its more than 80 federal, state and community partnerships.
It will require that kind of teamwork in Fresno to successfully address our homeless problem.


THE ADVOCATE RESPONSE


To: FresnoHomelessAdvocates@yahoogroups.com
From: MikeRhodes@comcast.net
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:54:47 -0700
Subject: [FresnoHomelessAdvocates] Responding to The Fresno Bee editorial

The Fresno Bee printed an editorial (see below) about the homeless in this morning’s paper.  Several people have asked me what I thought about it.
What I liked about the Fresno Bee editorial was that it made a strong statement about the need to do something for the thousands of homeless people who are living on the streets right now.  The mayor’s narrative is that homeless encampments are bad and that she wants to put people into housing.  That is a nice and simple message that plays well in the media, but the problem is that there is a huge gap between destroying the encampments and when homeless people get a voucher and into an apartment.  This is something that I have been talking about for years.  While I find it hard to believe that the mayor thinks that you can destroy homeless peoples shelters and then VIOLA, they are all in housing, that is what she is saying.  The Bee just called her out on her faulty logic.  I get that she is trying to be “positive,” but there is such a huge disconnect between what she is saying and reality, people can’t help but notice.
Aside from The Bee’s acknowledgment that this GAP exists, I did not like the analysis or the solutions they offer.  For example, they wrote “The Swearengin administration is doing the right thing by clearing out the illegal homeless encampments downtown.”  I disagree.  The homeless encampment they destroyed yesterday was a calm place with a stable group of people who looked out for each other.  The owner of the land did not mind that the homeless were there, but was coerced into having them removed, rather than be fined by the City of Fresno for the clean up.  At least that is what the owner told the people who lived there.  The Grain Silo encampment was just a poor neighborhood that homeless people lived in because they could not afford to live somewhere else.  The camp provided protection from predators and there was always someone around to look after a neighbors property if a resident left for a while.  Without having neighbors you can trust, people are more vulnerable.  How is it better for a woman to live alone out in the open or under an oleander bush, without neighbors to protect her?  Homeless encampments provide protection and stability for people who find themselves in very difficult circumstances.
Also, having thousands of people displaced from the encampments in the downtown area is going to be a problem for the health and safety of everyone.  At least when people lived in these encampments we could provide them with portable toilets and trash bins.  That is no longer the case.  Where do you think all of that waste is going to end up now?
The Bee’s solution is to put homeless people into a big encampment that “must be fenced and located in an area without adjacent businesses and homes.”  Great!  First City Hall tells people that the homeless are criminals, they destroy their shelters, take their property and now they want to put them in a concentration camp in some remote location?  This has been done before and the outcome is not good.
The answer is decentralized safe and legal places for the homeless to live.  Homeless advocates wrote a proposal to do this in January 2012.  A copy of that proposal is also below.
Mike Rhodes
Editor
Community Alliance Newspaper
PO Box 5077
Fresno Ca 93755
(559) 978-4502 (cell)
editor@fresnoalliance.com
www.fresnoalliance.com
***

PROPOSAL FOR SAFE AND LEGAL HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS IN FRESNO

The Need
The City of Fresno allowed homeless encampments to exist and grow for several years but in the past couple of months has cleared out all the major encampments in the city. This dislocation has resulted in thousands of homeless people in Fresno having no safe and legal place to live.
Existing shelters cannot house all of the homeless who are now sleeping on sidewalks and other locations not intended for human habitation. As temperatures dipped below freezing in late December, one woman died as she slept on the sidewalk outside of the Poverello House. Many others are sick with pneumonia and other illnesses related to their exposure to the cold weather.
The cost to city and county government, if we allow the situation to continue as it currently exists, will be enormous. The price of providing emergency medical care and hospitalization would be dramatically reduced if we redirected those dollars to provide the homeless with a safe and legal place to live.
Although the city’s goal of decent, affordable and permanent housing for everyone is a good goal, we all know that it cannot be achieved anytime soon. Therefore, there will be homeless people who do not make it into a shelter and have no place to sleep. It is with those people in mind, and there are currently thousands of them in the City of Fresno, that this proposal is intended to assist.
Safe and Legal Campsites
The fastest and easiest way to dramatically improve life for the homeless would be to allow them to construct shelters and provide them with basic public services. With shelters like tents, the homeless can get out of the rain and stay considerably warmer than if they have no protection from the rain, wind and cold.
These encampments will exist on public and private land. The City of Fresno could determine which property it owns that will be used for these encampments. The city will allow encampments to be developed, through a conditional use permit, for any owner of property who wanted to use his/her land for that purpose. The city will work with other state, federal or county governmental entities to facilitate the use of the land for encampments.
Initially, Phase I of this proposal seeks to allow the establishment of encampments at existing sites, with limited development of infrastructure. A longer-term project will see some infrastructure put into place to better serve the needs of the homeless residents.
These campsites will be self-governing and not overseen by any social service agency or government entity. The residents will be like any other group of people living in a small neighborhood. They will be provided with drinking water, portable toilets and trash pickup. Those services could be paid for by the city, county, community groups, churches, and/or individuals.
The individuals living in these safe and legal homeless encampments will be responsible for maintaining the campsite. No illegal activity will be permitted in the camp. If there are legal problems, they will be handled in the same way as they are in any other neighborhood in Fresno.
These campsites will be distributed throughout the city and consist of no more than 100 residents per encampment. The purpose of the multiple locations is an acknowledgment that homeless people live throughout the community, and the intention is to equitably distribute the encampments throughout the city as much as possible. The purpose of limiting each camp to 100 people or less is to avoid concentrating the homeless in one location and impacting any single area with a high density of homeless people.
Possible campsites include vacant lots, churches, parks and unused government property.
Phase I of this proposal will start immediately and utilize the areas where the homeless are already living. Phase I will allow the homeless to construct simple structures (tents and tarps) and live in them until something better is available. This will take away the stigma of living illegally and being told to “move on,” when there is nowhere better to move on to. This decriminalization of poverty is an important first step in allowing people to live with dignity and respect.
Phase I will provide every group of 10 or more homeless people living together with basic public services (drinking water, toilets, and trash service). Providing the homeless with these services will not only dramatically improve their lives but also clean up our. Having access to drinking water should be a service provided to every citizen of this community, whether rich or poor.
Phase II, which will take a couple of months to start, will seek new locations for the homeless encampments. These new locations will have improved infrastructure and might be associated with a church or a community group, or they could be independent and located on property owned by someone who allows the encampment on his/her property.
The range of shelters in Phase II might include tents, wooden buildings, modified tool sheds and other structures deemed appropriate by the residents. Although residents in the Phase II development might stay for a while, none of these encampments is intended to be permanent. The goal is to work with the residents, address any issues they have that are holding them back and get them into decent and affordable housing as soon as possible.
The primary goal of phase one and two of this project is to improve the lives of the homeless while saving taxpayers money and improving public safety.  By stabilizing and improving their lives, it will improve their chances of getting a job and/or getting the help they need from social service agencies. That assistance ranges from health services, mental health services, alcohol or drug addiction treatment, job training or getting a better education. Being in a stable location will help the homeless get the assistance they need.
A cost-benefit analysis of this proposal would show that it will save the taxpayers money. Our streets, businesses and residential neighborhoods will benefit by providing homeless people with basic public services. Homeless people will benefit by improved living conditions, better contact with social service agencies and ultimately getting into a house.
Phase III, We recognize that there is both an independent and resourceful spirit among homeless people. A portion of the population will never be served by traditional housing. Additionally, many homeless individuals posses underutilized construction skills or the capacity to learn those skills.
In Phase III we would like to identify location(s) suitable for the development of permanent self sustaining communities that are being designed by architect Arthur Dyson and the non-profit organization, Eco-Village. At an location agreeable to the residents and the jurisdictions, an Eco-Village will be planned for phased development. Residents that will work on the site will establish a temporary camp on site. Through sweat equity and volunteers labor the shared facilities (bathrooms, kitchen, community space, etc.) and individual dwellings will be built and occupied by the residents.
The work will be guided by tradesmen and trained professionals.
Alternatively, the City or County may determine an existing unused public facility that it desires to convert for use as shelter. Like with the Eco-Village, a temporary camp will be located on site and homeless individuals will work on the adaptation of the facility for shelter. In turn they will gain skills and earn equity in the final product.
Additional suggestions are to establish true 24/7 Emergency Shelter for up to 30 days, following acquiring federal funding for Emergency Shelter and Services.  Development of transitional housing for up to 2 years.  We also support a permanent housing development utilizing existing and foreclosed homes in Fresno and the new affordable housing being developed as part of Housing First.