LOCAL: 3/20/2012 SLO City Council Report (Safe Parking Program)

Hey Folks, I wanted to do a quick write up on the Tuesday 3/20/2012 San Luis Obispo City Council meeting. I attended and spoke for my 2 of 3 alloted minutes, pretty much reading the speech attached below. I modified it during my time at the dais to comment in more detail about the onerous new restrictions on parking that was being proposed. I alluded to the fact that when my Aunt and Uncle pull up to our house in SLO in their RV for a few days visit that they would have to go downtown to apply for an oversized vehicle permit. They would fill out an application, which would be evaluated (on the spot - by next Tuesday? etc.) and if they were qualified to receive one of the limited number of permits being allocated (that day, that week, etc.?). If they couldn’t get a permit (hey, they probably would have to borrow a car or take the bus to go downtown, as their RV is a Dodge Ram pickup with a 32 foot 5th wheel - no idea where they’d park THAT downtown). 


Anyways, a few other comments on the meeting itself. Many of the speakers were inspring to me. I’ll start with those first. There was a homeless Cal Poly student who had a job, was working towards a degree, but was homeless. He was well-spoken and emphasized the hard times faced by homeless people like him who were doing everything possible to become a viable productive member of society. Another person, older, was a lifetime homeless person, who grew up homeless. He too was working but could not afford the home lifestyle yet. He too was an articulate member of the homeless class and represented them well. Several commented about tearing up over his testimony. These are the type of folks, for lack of a better shorter term - the *good* homeless, whom Police Chief Gesell wants to throw under the bus along with the homeless that I call the *bad* homeless (the sex offenders, criminals, litterbugs, the hopeless, those who have made bad decisions, etc.). Now, of course, I do NOT consider them to be *bad*, but I use that good and bad distinction for conversational purposes. In the course of wanting to curb the criminal behavior of the bad homeless, Chief Gesell wants a club to bash all the homeless, both the good and the bad. I want him to do his police work and catch and prosecute the homeless lawbreakers - the hard job of police work. 


He claims he has limited resources, but what he has is overpaid law enforcers who aren’t willing to get their hands dirty in the complex world of the homeless, and due to union privilege, aren’t free to just go out and do their jobs, no matter what it takes. In another lifetime, I worked in the defense industry (where we didn’t have overtime) for 15 years in Southern California. We worked 90 hours weeks for months on end, trying to get the birds to fly (i.e., the Satellites launched and in orbit, processing and transmitting date, and not falling out of the sky); there was no overtime and nobody felt sympathy for you and your crummy 18 hour days, coffee and donut food regimen - you did what you had to do. With unions, you couldn’t, even if you wanted to *just get the job done*. Union rules, doncha see? I’m in favor of union rights, just not for public workers who are NOT oppressed by their government overseers. Okay, major tangent - time to get back on track. Oh yeah, one of the speakers also mentioned the irony that we throw pennies at the homeless problem, yet find a way to spend  $308,048 on SLO City Manager Katie Lichtig. I don’t believe for a minute that a competent manager could be had for maybe $100k or so. $308k salary to one person on the government payroll makes me ashamed of our local government for being so callous to the plight of the common man.


Okay, this is turning into a major diatribe - again! Sorry! A few more tidbits. A statistic was put out that was NOT in the 42 page staff report on the Prado Safe Parking Program: a tour of the city revealed 69 RV and cars housing the homeless on the streets (wonder how they got that number - did they count the RV at my house?). SLO City Council announced a cost of $80k to set up the Safe Parking Program (ouch! assuming a discounted hotel voucher program of $40 per night, that would be 5.5 years of a single hotel room for a homeless family - ok, breath - $80k is a onetime cost). Not clear how much was already spent with the staff time for the 42 page staff report. Another idea floated was campground vouchers for homeless RVers at local campgrounds - no opinion on that one, other than I agree that it should be explored. Chief Gesell emphasized the large volume of complaints about the homeless and their crimes, assaults, trespassing, and unruly environment in general. I wonder how many were arrested, prosecuted, cited, fined, etc. - he didn’t say. To me, that would be doing his job - catching the bad guys - maybe I don’t understand the function of police in SLO society. I also wanted to ask the Chief what the difference was between using the word TRANSIENT and the word HOMELESS to describe those who are unable to find housing. Transient has a negative and innacurate connotation, IMO. Transients (root “trans” which to “go across” or travel) are folks who are traveling, whereas, IN MY EXPERIENCE, our homeless have strong ties to this community and have not and are not leaving their roots - they are staying in SLO. Granted, it is anecdotal evidence on my part. 


Given that the SLO Police Department categorizes calls by transient or nontransient (28% of all SLO PD calls were transient related, according to Gesell), I was wondering if they could start logging calls by TRANSIENT, RENTER or HOMEOWNER? (since we’ve already started to categorize them by method of housing - why stop with homeless or with home?) I suspect that more calls are generated by those pesky renters, and especially those Cal Poly students, so maybe we could pass more onerous laws to crack down on renters and Cal Poly students, along with the transients? Yes, I am being facetious, but I do object to classifying calls as transient or non-transient. Its as if transients aren’t full humans, or at least not citizens of our state, county, city and country? Chief Gesell also noted that between 3/1/2012 and 3/20/2012, only 18% of SLO PD calls were related to transients, representing a drop of 10%, or in statistical parlance that makes it look distorted, during the 3/1 - 3/20 timeframe (when transient calls surged), the actual transient call numbers dropped 64% Huh? Something is fishy here, and I’m guessing its the way the SLO PD counts transient calls (over the last 5 years). I’m guessing that if a transient witnessed a crime, the call became a transient-related call, and added to the 28% transient related call statistic.


Another speaker, Robert W., lives in fear in his vehicle. He has lived in homeless shelters all his life. His testimony served to alert the SLO PD to the level of fear created by pounding on RV and car doors in the middle of the night when people are sleeping. Chief Gesell continues to justify this practice, and appears that it will be continued. He did not back down from his view when teachers reported children in these cars coming to school the next day and being very upset - making it difficult for them to concentrate on their studies and no doubt causing ongoing emotional problems for them.


Some speakers alluded to the possibly unconstitutional nature of outlawing sleeping in cars; several expressed the desire to remove the prohibition on sleeping cars. I was always taught that if you were too tired to drive, to pull over and take a nap. If that happened in SLO and Chief Gesell or his officers came by, I would have a problem - I would now be breaking the law, plain and simple (I’d still take that over falling asleep, crashing and dieing). I have no constitutional view on this, but do believe that the framers of our constitution would be shocked to find out that a person without living quarters could not legally bed down in a tent on a ranch outside of town - legally. Again, I need to make the point that outlawing sleeping in RVs, cars or creekbeds is de facto outlawing homelessness. Humans need to sleep to live. Outlawing sleeping is akin to outlawing breathing - stopping breathing just makes you die faster, but never sleeping will kill you eventually. There’s much evidence out there - just go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation to read more. I’m sorry if the Police Chief disagrees with this, too. Basically, the Chief views sleeping in cars as breaking the law and “they came from somewhere [else]”, meaning they should go back to wherever they came from (even if SLO is where they were raised, worked or went to school).


The bottom line is that the SLO City Council did the right thing: they went ahead with the Prado Safe Parking Pilot Program, and tabled the onerous parking restrictions for another day - stay tuned. Sorry so long. Wanted to give an update on the meeting.

LOCAL: March 20, 2012 7pm SLO City Council Meeting

Subject: Pilot Safe Park Program in conjunction with CAPSLO

***************************************************************
Tribune Article 3/21/2012 (text and link)
The San Luis Obispo City Council unanimously approved a pilot program Tuesday night to provide safe overnight parking for a handful of the city’s homeless people who live in their vehicles. The goal of the test program is to provide homeless people with a safe place to sleep while connecting them with case management and eventual housing. Five parking spaces at the Prado Day Center were approved. City staff will report back to the council on the program in six months. The council delayed a discussion that would have directed staff to study ways to create stricter laws regulating overnight camping in vehicles, making enforcement easier for police officers. “This program is moving in the right direction,” Councilman Dan Carpenter said. “It is a good start. It’s not going to solve all the problems, we know that. Maybe the program’s success will spill over to churches, other property owners and businesses. I see this as a potential for opportunity to expand it.” Only those people who commit to case management, and remain drug- and alcohol-free will be candidates for the program. The number of people living in their cars has increased in recent years for a variety of reasons including the economy, a lack of transitional and affordable housing and limited shelter beds, according to city officials. The issue came to the public’s attention when officers began enforcing a city ordinance that prohibits over-night camping on city streets. That move was prompted by complaints from business owners and citizens about what they claimed were increasing assaults, theft and public urination and defecation. Twenty people spoke in favor of the pilot program Tuesday; many of them also asked the city to consider suspending enforcement of a local law that prohibits people from sleeping in their vehicles on city streets. “It is inhumane to harass and impoverish them further,” said San Luis Obispo attorney Stew Jenkins. “Suspend the ordinance altogether on the public streets. ... It is an unconstitutional vagrancy ordinance.” Motor homes, trailers and cars can be seen parked daily along streets including Prado Road, Long Street and Empresa Drive. Those living in the vehicles say police have unfairly targeted them. A recent survey done by city and Prado Day Center staff determined that more than 60 people are living in their vehicles on city streets. Of those, 24 were identified as potential candidates for the overnight parking program — individuals willing to follow the guidelines necessary to participate. City staff says the safe-parking program is consistent with the countywide attempt to address homeless issues in a 10-year plan now being created. That plan calls for a homeless-services campus on South Higuera Street in San Luis Obispo adjacent to the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services. A similar, but larger, overnight parking program has been offered in Santa Barbara for eight years. That program has 22 overnight parking areas that can accommodate up to 105 vehicles. A similar pilot program for three spaces at St. Barnabas Episcopal in Arroyo Grande is up for a vote before the City Council on Tuesday. The San Luis Obispo parking program will begin as soon as the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, which is overseeing it, can raise the estimated $20,000 needed to launch it. “This was a great hurdle but it is just a piece in the puzzle,” said Dee Torres, homeless services coordinator.

Read more here:
San Luis Obispo OKs pilot effort for homeless parking

*****************************************************************
My 2 cents worth at the meeting last night (3/20/2012)

My name is Tim Waag and I live in San Luis Obispo. For more than 10 years, I have put in thousands of hours volunteering at the Homeless Shelter Overflow, Prado Day Center, and assisting homeless people that I have met in SLO that are not in the CAPSLO case management system. I reviewed the “SAFE PARKING PILOT PROGRAM AT PRADO DAY CENTER & DIRECTION REGARDING PUBLIC STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS” document in detail, and spoke with Police Chief Gesell and CAPSLO Director Dee Torres at length about it. I am STRONGLY in favor of giving the go-ahead to the Pilot Safe Parking program, and I urge the SLO City Council to move this high priority program forward. I favor parking for 6 vehicles at Prado instead of 5, as 6 is the maximum number supported by the staff report. I consider a video surveillance system that is viewable by CAPSLO and / or SLO Police Department Staff as mandatory, and provide as much supervision of the Prado lot during Safe Parking Program hours as possible. However, I found the proposed additional parking restrictions, imposed on 3/4 ton pickup trucks, unattached trailers, RVs and large vehicles, to be onerous, expensive and unnecessary, and I STRONGLY object to them. Enumerating the proposed restrictions listed in the Safe Parking Program document would take me beyond my 3 minute speaking alotment, but I urge those in the audience who have NOT read them to do so - it’ll make your head spin. [At this point, I went off text and discussed just one aspect of the parking restrictions: your Aunt and Uncle pull up in their RV to spend the weekend parked in front of our house in SLO - but they need to go downtown to city hall to hopefully get a permit - they are restricted in number you see, and they might not get one. In that case, being law-abiding citizens respectful of the laws of another town, they move on down the road instead, to a city that is friendlier to their visits].

I will take an immediate solution such as the Safe Parking Program, for a tiny percentage of the local homeless today over promises of temporary housing solutions that are still YEARS down the road. Those who are homeless in our city need a place to sleep TONIGHT - keep that in mind. Imagine yourself in their shoes. Most of us who are doing our best to help the homeless population find permanent housing often utter “There but for the Grace of God go I” - you should too. Thank-you.San Luis Obispo OKs pilot effort for homeless parking

LOCAL: Hello, Stranger!

Our new original western movie is now on Vimeo for your viewing (or streaming) pleasure. It is in three parts...they are all password protected as some film fests will not consider films posted publicly on the internet. You can share the password though.

begin here

Play the Movie: Hello Stranger!
password= "howdy"

the film has had three very successful screenings and is being considered for Toronto, Maui and Los Angeles fests. More to come!

I still need to edit a bit...I noticed we forgot the music credits. That will be corrected soon!

Enjoy!

Johnee Gange
Director
Adventure Club SLO
www.adventureclubslo.com
# 805 471 7889

LOCAL:CAPSLO Safe Parking Program Discussion

*****

I received a long response from a CAPSLO representative via email regarding the proposed Pilot Safe Parking Program. At the request of several members of the SLO City Council, I reviewed their 42 page document, and sent out my feedback to the city council as well as the SLO Police Chief. In addition, I sent it out to fellow homeless volunteers. Before sending it out, I sought additional information from the SLO Police Chief and CAPSLO. I heard back from the Police Chief and had an hourlong discussion about it, which was helpful in backfilling information. I was unsuccessful in reaching a CAPSLO official before my self-imposed deadline for getting my feedback to the SLO City Council. Below are two email responses from a CAPSLO Official. After the 2 emails below, I was able to speak with the CAPSLO official for about an hour to backfill some information. It was a helpful discussion.

The 2 emails preceding our discussion are reproduced below. Thanks to CAPSLO for getting back to me.

*****
March 17, 2012
1st Response from CAPSLO to me:
Hi Tim,

Sorry that I haven't gotten to you sooner, I did ask Bill to give you a call and let you know that I wasn't ignoring you, just swamped.  To be honest a large chunk of my time as of late has been discussing these very issues with many interested individuals.  In actuality I am glad that we as a community are willing to discuss these very tough issues.  These conversations are important and unfortunately very complicated.  The RV/vehicle encampment which has developed out on Prado Road has brought up feelings and opinions from what feels like just about everyone in the City if not the County (I am probably being a bit over dramatic as it has been a long week and I'm a bit weary).

I'm assuming that you plan to attend the Council Hearing on Tuesday and I'd hate to take up precious time during the meeting clarifying programmatic inaccuracies if they can be cleared up in advance, so I'll do my best here and welcome a follow-up conversation if needed.  

In reading your comments about our proposed program I want to say that you seem to be at a disadvantage, as it appears you don't have all the information.  You state that we will serve "5 lucky family groups" in another sentence you refer to our program participants as "lottery winners". This couldn't be further from the truth, our program participants will be people who are temporarily sleeping in their vehicles due to a variety of circumstances, but have the desire and are willing to take appropriate actions to move into permanent housing.  These people aren't "lucky" they are in tough situations and willing to partner with us to help get them out of it and into better ones.

You go on to describe the proposed program disparagingly by stating things like "it will NOT reduce the homeless problem in any statistically significant way", "will not even make a small dent in the problem",  and again that it's a "temporary place to sleep for 5 lucky homeless".  Again, I'm not going to get into all of the details but I and my staff believe that these statements are incorrect.  We believe that by offering people a safe place to park and the supportive services needed to secure permanent housing, we are making more than a small dent in homelessness.  The statistics that are collected from this program will be very valuable as we can finally stop speculating about this issue.  Having facts about why people are choosing to sleep in their vehicles rather than a shelter and what they're willing to do about it, will help us to decide if more sites are needed.  You state that our MLM Shelter is full and most nights this is correct, but I should remind you that it's not full of "case managed" clients.  If someone agrees to save their money for housing and work on barriers/set goals they are guaranteed a bed until they are housed (out of the 80 or so beds available including Over Flow less than 30 are choosing to save money and work with a case manager to get a job etc).

I must admit I was saddened at the way in which you call into question our Case Management program statistics and outcomes, in your e-mail you state "I MAY BE DUMB, BUT I’M NOT STUPID:  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, the statement will always be true. This is absolutely not true, we could have clients who are doing everything right, working with a case manager and saving money, addressing substance abuse issues, looking for work etc, but due to the economy as you state either can't secure housing or employment.  In these instances. to no fault of their own these clients aren't successful forcing us to drop them from the program "voila our success rate would go down".   This is not the case!  We have a 100% success rate despite the lack of affordable housing, the economy, job market, etc.. If someone agrees to case management and works on goals with their case manager we will house them.  We often take people with $0 or very little income and get them permanently housed.  Once again if you want to have a discussion about the people who  for whatever reason (more often than not due to drug/alcohol and or mental health issues) choose not to work with a case manager or once housed stop paying their rent, get evicted or even voluntarily move out and onto the streets or back into the shelter  that's a very important discussion which deserves thoughtful conversations driven by evidence (you mention that we should keep these statistics, and we do).

I give you my word that we don't advocate for our Case Management program to be deceitful and/or self serving as you state, adding more work to my staff's load only benefits our clients. as it adds to our workload. We advocate for this because it's proven successful.  All that being said nowhere in our proposal or in the staff report will you see that I or anyone affiliated with this proposal is stating that this program will solve all illegal parking in this County or even the City.  How the City responds to people who for whatever reason(s) do not want to participate in any of our programs is not for me to answer.  I can simply continue to develop programs, I can't force people to take advantage of them. 

I hope I can clear up your stated "confusion" when you ask, "how can CAPSLO Guarantee spots for the willing? Aren't we limited to 5 spots: “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?  Since this program is brand new to our county all we can do at this point is speculate as to how many people will chose to take advantage of it.  One indicator could be our warming station.  We allow people to park in our lot when the warming station is activated.  Since it's inception we've never had more than 5 vehicles at any one time. In fact a recent example of utilization would be last night, as our warming station was activated and 3 vehicles took advantage of this service.  We also look to the fact that all people currently living in their vehicles have access to our case management program and very few are actually taking advantage of it.

To clarify your correlation between, proposed  regulations which may restrict parking in "extreme circumstances and even close select city streets"  and the Prado Road encampments.  I can tell you that my staff and I have made it clear to the City and the Chief that the unregulated encampment on Prado Road has been extremely problematic for our staff and clients. The health and safety issues are extreme and include physical altercations, verbal threats of violence,  drug/alcohol use, defecating/urinating/littering,  among other behaviors.  This encampment has not only our staff/volunteers but many of  our homeless clients report fear of walking down that street to get to our program and use services.  We have also stated clearly our apprehension in developing and running a parking program inside the Prado gate while the behaviors described above continue at the  encampment  right outside.  We've asked them to work with us on solutions and we believe that this program is an essential piece and a substantial solution again for those that are willing to take advantage of it.

I am confused by your statement  "Where should I go if I am homeless and Prado is full or will not take me?" as a volunteer to the program I assumed  you would know that in Prado's 15 year history we have never turned a client away due to "over capacity".    You also state that Prado doesn't allow animals and go on to state why they shouldn't be allowed into our parking program, in  actuality Tim this is incorrect.   In an effort to be more accommodating and reduce another barrier for potential clients to access our services,  several years ago we had on site kennels built in our garden area.   These kennels can and do accommodate up to 6 animals at any time. So far we have found this to be a sufficient # as we have yet to turn any pets away due to over capacity.  We are very proud of this program, we instituted it on a leap of faith believing it was the right thing to do despite the liability issues. To this day we continue to manage our pet program as we do all others and we've achieved such success that we plan to not only continue but expand this program to our new Center on South Higuera.

In regards to the trash in the creek you state, "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?" 

Again I can only speak from experience Tim, as someone who regularly works with the rangers and does outreach to the people at the creeks, the Trash they discuss is TRASH.  I, Shawn, and others have witnessed first hand the trash that's  strewn around these camp sites and in our creek right next to the empty plastic trash bags that we're given to campers a few days prior by the rangers.  Another complicated issue which deserves thoughtful discussions based on facts.

In regards to your question regarding the correlation between the economy,  and the rise in crime and/or police calls specific to the homeless, all I can do is speak from our experience and statistics.   We are all in agreement that the economy is tough it's hitting all of us in a variety of ways, but in order to come up with real solutions we need to be completely honest in regards to the problem.  We in homeless services have not seen a dramatic rise in people being displaced and actually on the streets/shelters due to the economy if you're equating that directly with "job loss".  For the most part with a few exceptions the majority of the people we work with and have the most difficult time housing are those who have severe drug/alcohol, and or mental/physical situations and in this regard it could be that the economy is exacerbating these issues as much needed services are cut. Again, this topic is too large to squeeze into an e-mail.  If you're asking me if our statistics show that there has been a spike in people who have been displaced due to unemployment the answer would be no.

Again, I appreciate your support for our programs and the fact that you obviously care about this issue.  Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments as this is very tough stuff and in my experience there are no easy answers or villains to vilify, just a lot of caring people trying to do there best to help.

My cell is ***-6760.

Best, ***

*****

March 17, 2012

2nd  Response from CAPSLO to me:

Hi Tim,

I'll give you a call and hopefully help clarify your questions.  Since there are so many people receiving these e-mails I will quickly answer the two main questions you pose below.  The 24 family units my staff identified as possible program participants are a rounded up guestimate based on several factors over a long period of time and hopefully success.  Our best guess based on our experience and knowledge, is that if this program is approved and we continue to work with the City and the Chief on enforcement issues, we think that of the vehicles currently parked on the streets possibly 24 would eventually take part in this program.  As I've stated in my e-mail to you below, everything we have right now is speculation and I've given you a few examples of actual numbers (warming station/current case management participation) that we're using to also help us develop this program.  As I stated previously the most practical and productive thing we can do right now is to begin the program, gather actual data and use that to grow if we can demonstrate the need.

As for the Enumeration that is a "point in time count and survey" which is a requirement of the Federal Government and from a programmatic perspective it's fraught with problems. This count is performed by volunteers in a 6 hour period, all information is self report (none of which is verified), and most importantly the  Enumeration data conflicts with verified data collected by our staff.  As I'm sure you can appreciate the Enumeration data is absolutely not something we use to develop our programs, instead we use our actual verified data.

Hope this helps and I will give you a call soon...  Thanks

Click Here to go back to "Tim Waag Blog" Home Page!

LOCAL: Response to SLO City Homeless Safe Parking Area

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.

LOCAL: Homeless Harassed in the Middle of the Night

*****
LOCAL: SLO Homeless Harassed in the Middle of the Night
WEDS. MARCH 7, 2012

The letter below was addressed to the San Luis Obispo City Council. Out of the 5 council members, I got a response back from only 2: Jan Marx (Mayor) and John Ashbaugh (City Council). Here is the original letter below:

I am writing regarding the recent controversy surrounding local law enforcement and their middle-of-the-night raids on our local homeless population who are sleeping in their vehicles. The actions of local authorities must halt until they can answer the big question of the homeless: “Where do you want me to go?” Unless you have experienced homelessness (I have not), its hard to understand the stress that being homeless puts on the majority of that population. If you add to that situation uniformed patrolmen driving up in armed vehicles who somehow feel the need bang on these peoples vehicles in the middle of the night, something bad is bound to happen, sooner or later. When the government takes complete control of our lives, they are no longer in the position to avoid the question of where the homeless are allowed to go.

Don’t believe me? I’ll give examples that I have experienced personally. When I wanted to add an electrical wall outlet in my home, I was required to get a permit and then let strangers into my home to inspect the work. When I wanted to remove a tree in my front yard that was a nuisance (a Eucalyptus tree that drops acorns and kills my lawn), I had to apply for a permit that may not have been granted - then I’m stuck with that awful tree. If I leave my trashcans in my driveway, I am subject to a fine from my local government, who apparently knows best where I should store my stuff. The local, state and federal government legislate every aspect of our lives, and thus must take responsibility for giving the homeless options that are better than “just move on down the road - anywhere but here”.

Back in the days before the government strangled our freedom (see previous 3 examples of no-doubt well-meaning government control), a homeless person could perhaps park on a lot at the edge of town (with the permission of the owners), and manage to survive. Those options are no longer available. Time for our comfortable law enforcement personnel (who no doubt know where they are going to sleep each night) to stop treating homelessness as a crime, and come up with some solutions immediately. The person sleeping in their car (or in a creekbed) doesn’t have time for endless bureaucratic machinations (like the 10 year plan) - they need solutions now. Those in power in our government have the authority to create a solution - but will they? Powerless private citizens, like Dan DeVaul, don’t stand a chance.

I understand that the homeless that are living in their vehicles are alleged to be causing various nuisance type problems. These include discarding trash alongside the road, as well as human waste. To me, this is a law enforcement issue, where the law enforcers must go out and catch the law breakers in the act, and then prosecute them under the law. I suspect that only some of the homeless are guilty of these violations, but are all being lumped together as scofflaws. Remember that you are innocent until proven guilty. I favor prosecution and citation for those who break the litter laws, but not a blanket accusation that all are guilty, without collecting actual evidence valid in a court of law.

In addition, the homeless are being cited for sleeping in their vehicles. Once again, I wonder how often law enforcement is actually collecting real evidence for use in their citations? The California Drivers License Handbook put out by the California DMV (English 2009 Version) states on Page 73: “If you are sleepy, the only safe cure is to get off the road and get some sleep.” Perhaps the homeless have pulled off the road to get some sleep because they are too drowsy to drive? Perhaps they are given citations without proof of illegal sleeping in vehicles? Homeless vehicle owners receiving citations often have no ability to pay those citations, and thus lose their vehicles and become homeless and living in our creeks and underpasses. This is not a solution - it on exacerbates the problem.

I have numerous homeless friends, and they currently feel like war is being declared on them (none of them live in their vehicles - they all live in tents along creeksides and under overpasses, etc.). I have personally helped several of them move their tents on a weekly basis for the last month due to increased level of scrutiny by the SLO PD. They are too afraid to do anything but comply. I suggested that they ask the law enforcement personnel where they should go, but they are too afraid of authority to ask. They feel more like hunted animals. You have to ask yourself what you would do in their situation? No, it is NOT a valid answer to say that you would never get in that situation. We all are subject to injury, mental illness, layoffs, the bad economy, poor judgment, etc. It could happen to you. So answer the question, please - what would you do? I have asked that question of myself many times.

Additionally, many men (and its mostly men who are homeless, in my experience - despite the statistics that may say otherwise) will not do intake at Prado for a variety of reasons that are too lengthy to get into here. That is reality. Chasing the homeless to another town is NOT a solution. Scaring the hell out of them in the middle of the night is NOT a solution. I'd be happy to suggest numerous solutions, were I to believe that any authorities out there like yourself have the inner fortitude to stand up and address the problem - not just write reports.

*****
WEDS. MARCH 7, 2012 - Response from John B. Ashbaugh, SLO City Council

Thanks for sharing your views, Tim. We're working as hard and as fast as we can, and we will begin to implement solutions in the very near future. That's as close to "immediately" as we can get.

John B. Ashbaugh
San Luis Obispo City Council

*****
THURS MARCH 8, 2012 - Response 1 from SLO Mayor Jan Marx

Hi Tim,
Thank you for your email on this important and complex issue.  It is a long time personal concern of mine, and definitely on my radar screen as Mayor.  My husband and I have volunteered at the Presbyterian Church overflow project, and I work with my Rotary Club to provide dinner at the homeless shelter on a regular basis.

On March 20, the council will consider a pilot program for overnight car camping at Prado Day Center's parking lot.  The agenda report will be out March 13 on the city website, slocity.org, if you would like to look at it. I would appreciate your input on this proposal.

Our police chief, Steve Gesell, was responding to complaints when he decided to enforce the city ordinance prohibiting overnight car camping on city streets.  Here is an excerpt from an email he sent council, below. Of course, not every homeless person is a criminal, but neither is homelessness an excuse for criminal behavior, as I am sure you would agree.  To me, the question is, how do we help them help themselves out of their situation?

All the best,
Jan

   "A query of our records system suggests that calls for service involving the transient population have nearly doubled in the last five years. PD Staff believes the actual numbers to be significantly higher due to limitations in the search field.
·         There have been two recent assaults on Prado. At least one involving a customer at J.B. Dewer.
·         Prado staff reports significant increase in illegal campers within the last six months. They estimate 2/3 of these campers have substance abuse issues, mental illness, behavioral problems or are registered sex offenders which would make them ineligible for services such as a traditional safe parking program.
·         Prado Day Center staff report being threatened/harassed by campers on Prado Lane.
·         City of SLO employees working at the Corporation Yard have expressed safety concerns.
·         The suspect (at large) in the most recent stabbing at Monterey and Broad is believed to be a transient with the moniker “Nobody”.
·         The stabbing at Globe Park last year was committed by a transient.
·         I personally witnessed a group of ten transients drinking at the circle/tribute to former City Councilman Bill Roalman adjacent to the Bob Jones trail and new pedestrian bridge. At the same time I observed two small boys near the bridge deliberating whether they should continue down the trail. They ultimately walked West on Prado Lane instead.
·         The Globe is frequently closed by the Parks and Rec Director to suppress criminal activity at the PD’s request  due to drug use/sales, alcohol consumption, smoking, dogs off leash, and physical altercations. The same issues surround Mission Plaza.
·         The Chamber and business owners frequently report incidents of littering, urination/defecation, trespassing, camping, disorderly conduct, and aggressive panhandling. I personally met with Chamber leadership last week for a prescheduled meeting. Transient impacts were the only concern brought forward by Chamber leadership during that discussion.
·         We’re currently working with other stakeholders to enhance penalties for repeat offenders (primarily for alcohol related offenses).
·         I was informed by Parks and Rec staff that approximately 40 tons of refuse was removed from abandoned transient camps last year -primarily in our creeks.
·         SLOPD currently tracks 25 registered sex offenders that are transients. Most are believed to camp south of Prado Road. The 2005 homicide/rape in the creek adjacent to the Mission was committed by a registered sex offender transient that was staying at “Duvall Ranch” at the time of the homicide."

*****
THURS. MARCH 8, 2012 - My Response 1 to Mayor Marx

Hi Jan, As always, thanks for your prompt response. I appreciate your concern. I will look at the 3/13 agenda report when it comes out. The powers-that-be, in the cases that I am familiar with, is the city of SLO. What is the answer TODAY to the homeless when they ask the authorities: Where do you want me to go? As far as I can tell, that answer is still "Go Away". That's not acceptable to me. These people need to have somewhere to sleep TONIGHT - not next week, next month, or next year. I know you understand what I am saying.

I've been spending a lot of my evenings in the last month helping homeless people move their camps after being threatened by what they describe (I am not an eye witness) as the SLO PD. Maybe you should join me some night and see what fun these people are having when they have nowhere to go. Their fear, stress and anxiety are at high levels in these situations. They often break down and cry. Grown, hardened men. One of them is in jail because he could not pay a citation.

Not sure what to make of your list below. I approve of citing and arresting lawbreakers. I approve of collecting legal evidence against them and prosecuting them. I do not approve of citation and arrest of those whose only crime is they cannot find a job and cannot find a place to sleep. The list below appears to be a list of crimes that the police should be pursuing - I agree. IIRC, sex offenders must be registered  with the city, including where they live. Since SLO PD knows they are sex offenders, isn't it a crime not to register? You would know better than I would. Much of what is below is opinion ("believed to be a transient").  How about we provide solutions to law-abiding transients, and prosecute law breaking transients? Did every vehicle that had their door pounded on in the wees hours of the morning contain a person with whom the police had evidence of criminal behavior (other than wanting to sleep?). I doubt it. I understand that this type of law enforcement is hard work, but isn't that what the SLO PD gets paid their 6 figures salaries to do?

Did Police Chief Steve Gesell decide that knocking on doors at 2 or 3 am was the best time to enforce the city ordinance prohibiting overnight car camping on city streets? Maybe it would have been best to do surveillance of the area, determine when the transients tended to emerge from their vehicles, and talk to them then, while they and their children are awake? What is served by scaring people so badly? You only invite trouble, IMO. If so many of them are mentally ill, as is alleged, is it good judgment to take the middle-of-the-night get-em-out-of-bed and scare 'em approach?

*****
THURS MARCH 8, 2012 - Response 2 from SLO Mayor Jan Marx

Thanks for getting back to me Tim.  I agree the situation is very serious and complex.  The individuals who have ended up in this situation each have their own, often moving, story.  Often substance abuse, mental illness and/or anti-social behavior are factors in their inability to garner support from their friends and family.  Often, they simply do not want to accept medical treatment or assistance from social services.

Our city does more than any other city in the county, or the county itself, to address homelessness.  But, obviously, the problem is not easily solved. However, we can make progress.  Please feel free to share your insights and concerns with our new Police Chief Steve Gesell and to discuss his “take” on this difficult problem.  His contact information is below.

All the best,
Jan

Stephen Gesell
San Luis Obispo Police Chief
1042 Walnut Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7020

*****
THURS. MARCH 8, 2012 - My Response 2 to Mayor Marx

Hi Jan, I know that you have better things to do than correspond with me, so I do appreciate your attention to this issue. I would love to have a BRIEF 10 minute conversation about this issue with Police Chief Gesell, if he is willing to talk with me. I manage the homeless shelter overflow at the United Congregational Church (Los Osos Valley Road) for the entire month of July (up to 32 clients from CAPSLO every night), plus volunteer at all the other church overflows (including your Presbyterian Church), plus volunteer at Prado, plus I always have 2 or 3 homeless people outside of the CAPSLO system that I provide assistance as best I can, plus I've employed homeless people over the years to help out as best I can. Believe me, I'm no expert on any of this, of course, but I do have some potentially useful ideas. I am easily accessible via the phone numbers below (cell phone first, work phone 2nd, home phone 3rd).  I'd love to have that conversation with the Police Chief, if there's even a slight possibility that some good would come of it. Thanks again.
--Tim

*****
FRIDAY MARCH 9, 2012
CONVERSATION WITH POLICE CHIEF GESELL

On Friday, March 9, 2012, I spoke for over an hour with San Luis Obispo Police Chief Steve Gesell. This was facilitated by Mayor Marx (thank-you). Chief Gesell was polite and respectful, and so was I. He insisted on going over information that I already knew. Clearly, this was a PR thing, and it would APPEAR that he was instructed to talk to all the people like me that were complaining about the SLO PD's gestapo tactics in knocking on RVs with people sleeping in them in the middle of the night.

He was skillful and polite, but the bottom line is that he believes that homelessness in the SLO-area (I'm PARAPHRASING here) is almost entirely due to the lifestyle choice of our local homelessness, and has NOTHING to do with the current weak economy in California. Moreover, he claimed that CAPSLO Director Dee Torres told him as much. I phoned Dee to discuss this and other items brought up by the Chief, but she had her assistant call me back (as she was on jury duty). No, I don't expect a call back from her either, though I asked for one. I don't believe this is true, though it would not change much if it was.

I do believe that our current weak California economy has caused additional citizens to go from having a home to homelessness - to believe otherwise defies logic, in my opinion.

In addition, Chief Gesell would not directly address the question of where should the homeless go. He INDIRECTLY indicated 2 things he would tell them: 1) sleeping in your vehicle is illegal 2) you came from somewhere else - I took this to mean that they should go back to whereever they came from.

In addition, the Chief appeared to believe that since they have inadequate police resources, they are free to assume that those parked near the trash and human waste on Prado were the ones that put it there, and that they do not need to witness such acts. Guilty based on circumstantial evidence.

*****
SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 2012
Response 1 from Police Chief Gesell
Finally, I did not tell you or imply that all homelessness was rooted in choice, nor did I say Dee agreed with this. Apologies if I wasn't as clear as I could have been. We discussed mental illness, addiction, and the poor economy and I did say some will and continue to make lifestyle choices at the community's expense.

I did reference the reality that many of those transients who currently generate up to 28 percent of our total calls for service during daytime hours have substance abuse problems that will preclude them from programs such as the safe parking proposal. This statistic  (which I didn't mention to you) should concern you as it does me. Help us find solutions that bring this number down.

Thanks again for you input and involvement.

Sent from my iPhone

*****
SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 2012
Response 2 from Police Chief Gesell

Tim, thanks for the reply. Please remember the police are often at the center of deep issues that have a public safety component. My role is a small but highly visible one which is underscored by your reference to me in your email to Council. I'm hoping you will consider this as I am anything but a crusader against the homeless. I completely support the programs we have and the parking proposal. It goes without saying I have a duty to address real public safety issues knowing some will choose to frame me in a negative light. 

Wouldn't be able to speak to the correlation other recession and spike in our numbers. I would think its a contributor, just not sure how much. Social service providers would have a better idea.

The greater question in my mind is what is attracting what seems to be a disproportionate number of homeless folks to SLO. Im sure you would agree other communities should share the same compassion you and many others do. If not, our capacity will be exceeded as it has in other cities. A tight job market and social service programs is not a place set up for getting people back on their feet and out of homelessness. 

As far as a correction, I'm not concerned. These things happen all the time, particularly when people are passionate about the subject matter. I appreciate the offer though! Enjoy your weekend.

Sent from my iPhone

Click Here to go back to "Tim Waag Blog" Home Page!