My name is Tim Waag. For more than 10 years, I have put in thousands of hours volunteering at Prado Day Center, the Homeless Shelter Overflow, and assisting homeless people that I have met in SLO that are not in the CAPSLO system.
SPP = Safe Parking Program
SPP42 = The 42 page PDF file on SloCity.org titled “SAFE PARKING PILOT PROGRAM AT PRADO DAY CENTER & DIRECTION REGARDING PUBLIC STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS”.
Below is my analysis of SPP42 that is posted at www.CitySLO.org (http://slocity.org/cityclerk/agendas/2012/032012/b1safeparkingpradodaycenterpublicparking.pdf). This eLetter will be sent to the 5 SLO City Council Members, plus Police Chief Gesell. The so-called Pilot Safe Parking Area at Prado Road Day Center will be discussed on Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at the SLO City Council Meeting (The City Council holds regular meetings at 7:00 p.m. on the first, second and third Tuesdays of each month in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street).
In order to be brief, I will summarize my comments and address them in order from most to least important. My apologies that this my letter is not more polished and brief.
SUMMARY:
In reviewing SPP42, I found numerous areas that I find disturbing. It appears that we are allowing 5 lucky family groups to park on asphault overnight in exchange for onerous and expensive new restrictions on parking throughout the entire city of SLO. I support increasing the vehicles in the SPP from 5 to 6 - we need provide safe parking for as many people as possible within the safety criteria suggested.
IT COULD BE US:
Those who are homeless in our city need a place to sleep TONIGHT - keep that in mind. Put yourself in their shoes; most of us who support the transient population in finding permanent homes often utter “There but for the Grace of God go I” - you should too.
SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE 1 ON PAGE B1-16:
[Page B1-16 ALTERNATIVES] I strongly encourage the adoption of the SPP as soon as possible; therefore, I support Alternative 1. I OPPOSE the addition of new, costly and more restrictive parking ordinances that SPP42 proposes. Keep in mind that Pilot SPP does NOT reduce the homeless problem in any statistically significant way. However, it does provide a temporary place to sleep for 5 lucky homeless family groups.
NEW PROHIBITIONS ON RVS PARKING ON SLO CITY STREETS - PART 1:
I STRONGLY oppose a city ordinance “that prohibits parking of RVS on city streets” [page B1-12, section 1) at top of page]. As an RV owner, I occasionally park my RV on the street, and strongly object to this provision. Also, a permitting process is an UNNECESSARY CITY AND TAXPAYER EXPENSE, and creates one more bureaucracy. I also STRONGLY oppose the other two provisions [2) and 3)] on the same page. Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo are NOT the same city! I own a Dodge Diesel truck (a standard cab truck - seating for 2 - with an 8 foot bed - it looks like a regular pickup truck) that I park on the street in front of my house that is a 3/4 ton, and I could no longer park it in front of my house (or at a friend’s house) overnight? Really? Also on the same page: “Prohibits the parking of RVs within 500 feet of schools, churches, shelters and parks”. Not allowing detached trailers to park on city streets? Many contractors leave their utility trailers on the street overnight at a job site - do we really want to outlaw this? I OPPOSE a new parking permit system for oversized vehicles! $400 per sign expense for the city - can we afford this? The massive bureaucracy proposed by SPP42 is jaw-dropping. Please do NOT direct staff to address street parking regulations. This is just an easy way for the police to ticket every RV in the city parked on the street that does not have the magic and hard-to-get PERMIT.
NEW PROHIBITIONS ON RVS PARKING ON SLO CITY STREETS - PART 2:
I STRONGLY oppose efforts to “improve parking enforcement to address person sleeping in vehicles...” [page B1-1, Recommendation 3)]; [page B1-2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence]. The SPP should NOT result in more restrictive laws for those who are not one of the 5 lucky ones that get a spot in the SPP. Keep in mind that the Pilot SPP will not make even a SMALL dent in the problem. Witness the 30+ RVs referrenced by the SLO Police Department in SPP42 that are parking on Prado Road alone. The Pilot program should be done, but the SPP solution is but a tiny drop in the bucket. SPP42 continues in this vein on page B1-14, where it seems to encourage new laws to restrict RV parking on public streets. SPP42 never comes right out and says why this is needed, except as a tool to remove people sleeping RVs from their vehicles permanently. It implies that there would be a reduced need for 72 hour tagging, since the city could now drive through the city, writing RV citations. Visitors staying in our city would need to get permits in order to park in San Luis Obispo; note that these permits would not automatically be granted, but would be given out based on an evaluation of the visitor! What kind of evaluation? This sounds ominous and unfriendly to me. The number of permits and times would be LIMITED. It also says that the reason for this restriction is to remove long term RV parking on city streets and homeless people sleeping in their RVs. Most of the homeless that I know sleep in their CARS (if not the creeks) and do not own an RV. Yes, it says all this and more! Please read the bottom of page B1-14 carefully.
NEW ABILITY TO CLOSE ENTIRE SLO CITY STREETS TO ALL PARKING WHEN THE HOMELESS MOVE IN:
I oppose the proposal on page B1-15 item 2) that proposes to give the Police Chief unchecked power to close select city streets to all parking under extreme circumstances. I assume that the “extreme circumstances” he is referring to is the recent situation on Prado where numerous homeless parked overnight when they had nowhere else to go? Again, allowing 5 lucky homeless lottery winners to park at Prado will be justification for clamping down on all the other homeless who have nowhere else to go. Paragraph 3) on the same page warns the SLO City Council to be prepared for “objections from residents who believe that stricter regulations are unnecessary” - I am one such resident.
INCREASE THE PARKING FROM 5 VEHICLES TO 6:
The site map clearly shows room for 6 vehicles in the Pilot SPP, yet only 5 will be allowed. Also, page B1-10 at the top of the page in section a) indicates that the parking lot can SAFELY accommodate up to 6 total vehicles. This will make a big difference for the 1 person who gets the 6th spot, but will not materially affect the success of the Pilot SPP, in my opinion [page B1-1, Report-in-Brief section at bottom of page]. CAPSLO had originally proposed 25 vehicles, and the program has been whittled down to 5! How about 1 more? Make it 6 please.
PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION: WHERE SHOULD I GO IF I AM HOMELESS AND PRADO IS FULL OR WILL NOT TAKE ME?
The city still needs to answer the question: Where should I go if I am homeless? The answer is NOT Prado DAY Center (its a day center). Maxine Lewis fills up and the Overflow does not accept single men; a large number of our homeless are men. The City’s answer cannot be: you are breaking the law and you should leave and go back to wherever you came from. Since the city controls every aspect of our lives, it must answer this question. Despite Chief Gesell’s protests to the contrary, SLO has outlawed being homeless. Humans have to sleep to survive (ie, if you don’t sleep, you will die - just like breathing), and if every spot the homeless sleep in (ie, creek bed, car, RV) is against the law, you have essentially outlawed homelessness. To argue otherwise is disengenuous. Its not that different from outlawing breathing: you can’t stop people from breathing, but you can ticket them for it.
STOP KNOCKING ON THE VEHICLES OF HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT:
The policy by the SLO Police Department of banging on doors and if nobody answers, then they tag it with a notice to move 500 feet within 72 hours. Alternatively, if they answer the knock, they receive an “Overnight Camping” violation. This policy encourages people to not open their doors to police when they knock. In my opinion, knocking on the doors of vehicles in the middle of the night without probably cause of a crime (except for sleeping) should stop; instead, knock on their doors in the morning (say 7am or 8am) instead. Scaring potentially unstable citizens in the middle of the night is NOT wise. Also, ticketing RVs creates fines that the homeless cannot pay, causing them to lose their RV to fines, and causing them to move into the creek camps.
ILL-DEFINED ISSUES STILL OUT THERE (PETS, VIDEO CAMERAS, OVERNIGHT SUPERVISION, RV BATHROOMS):
There are a number of ill-defined issues that are not addressed in SPP42. Among the most glaring are that there will not be a supervisor there during the time of the program, so what is to prevent unauthorized campers from entering the facility or the authorized vehicles? etc. In my experience, parking without full-time supervision may be problematic. When acting as overnight host at the Overflow, I have called CAPSLO and the Police on numerous occasions. Without this support, bad things may have happened. The incident are too numerous to detail here, but it would appear that the Prado parking lot is a less controlled environment than the inside of a Church, yet we REQUIRE somebody to be awake all night at the Church. A possible solution would be to use volunteers overnight in much the same way that they are used at the overflow, but I believe that a supervisor (volunteer or CAPSLO) must be onsite during the active hours of the SPP. Video cameras hooked to the internet and monitored at Maxine Lewis should be MANDATORY, especially if there is no overnight supervision. Also, I believe that having pets may be a bad idea as well. At the homeless shelter overflow, pets in vehicles on Church property are not allowed due to liability issues. Also, Prado Day Center itself does not allow pets on its facility during operating hours. I personally assisted with giving birth to a litter of pups during one of the Prado’s “Warming Station” nights. Being an RVer, I know that poorly maintained RV bathroom facilities can be a problem (think leaking pipes or an overflowing tank), so clean-up facilities need to be ready in the event of RV spillage. I agree that the 5 lucky SPP family groups need valid driver’s license, registration and insurance; however, the current SLO Police Department ticketing for overnight sleeping effort puts severe financial pressure on the ability of the homeless to pay for insurance and registration. It is expensive to register RVs due to the weight fee included with California state registration, and I have no idea how they find an insurance company to insurance their vehicle without an address or a job. Obtaining and keeping insurance my be a difficult hurdle, and I did not see it addressed in SPP42.
YOU CALL IT 40 TONS OF TRASH - HOW MUCH OF IT WAS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF SOME HOMELESS PERSON (WHO COULDN’T CARRY IT AROUND ON THEIR BACK?)
The report notes repeatedly that 40 tons of refuse was disposed of by the city along creeks in 2011. I wonder how much of that material were personal posessions of the homeless? The homeless cannot carry all their personal posessions on their back all day, so they must leave them in their camp homes while looking for work or seeking food. I am skeptical about the scape-goating that comes from this 40 ton figure. I personally know several homeless people that had their personal posessions (know as refuse to the City of SLO) taken in this manner. I wonder where the 40 ton figure came from - did the Parks Department weigh all of it, or was it an estimate. Police Chief Gesell wields that figure like a sword, and uses it as an indictment of all homeless people in SLO. I believe that the homeless do need to properly dispose of their garbage, and if they don’t, the litter laws should be enforced.
ITS THE ECONOMY, STUPID!
Attachment 5 on page B1-25 shows that calls for service with “Transient” increased when the Great Recession hit the California economy. Yet Police Chief Gesell told me personally that none of our local homelessness was caused by the weak economy, but instead was a lifestyle choice on the part of the homeless. I guess the rise in complaints was just coincidence? Come on, Police Chief! Also, he claimed that CAPSLO Director Dee Torres confirmed this statistic. I put a call in to Ms. Torres, but I have not been able to confirm this with her yet.
I’M CONFUSED: HOW CAN CAPSLO GUARANTEE SPOTS FOR THE WILLING? AREN’T WE LIMITED TO 5 SPOTS?
On page B1-9 of the Pilot SPP under “Target Clients”, it states under item 2. that “those who are willing to actively participate in the case management program will receive a GUARANTEED PARKING SPACE until they are housed”. How can this be guaranteed with only 5 spaces?
I'M NOT BUYING THE 100% SUCCESS RATE:
Sorry, but the statistic on page B1-10 that “CAPSLO has a 100% success rate transitioning people who remain in case management into permanent housing.” is misleading, self-serving, or both. The “100% success rate” will always be 100%, since a client either drops out, stay in, or gets housing - voila! 100% success rate every time - by definition. Logically (and as a mathematician!), statistically significant results that are always the same (i.e., 100%) just never occur in nature or the real world. Nowhere in the real world is there ever a 100% success rate in a dynamic environment (Steve Nash making 100% of his free throws for his career; Lawyers having a 100% conviction rate when they take all cases; Doctors having a 100% hear transplant rate when they take all cases, etc.). How about a better statistic, such as percent of those in case management that drop out, percent of those in case management that obtain permanent housing, and among those who get permanent housing are once again returned to homelessness and CAPSLO case management?
HOW DID OCCUPY SLO SEEM TO GET A PASS (POLITICIANS), AND THE HOMELESS NEVER DO?
How many days did Occupy SLO get to sleep downtown on public property without getting cited for “Overnight Camping”? I recall reading that the last of the encamping just packed up and left recently.
No comments:
Post a Comment