Reference: SLO County Homeless Count Report 2013
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/Housing/2013+Homeless+Point-In-Time+Count.pdf
Reference: CAPSLO Programs
http://www.capslo.org/programs
Reference: "Change for Change" Downtown Parking Meter Program
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/04/24/3035936/parking-meters-prado-day-center.html
Dear Jenny,
This response is being written by a long-time Homeless Shelter Overflow volunteer who also works full time and volunteers for many other community non-profits (not related to homelessness). I would be happy to talk with you about this subject at any time, so that you may hear another perspective.
Thank-you for your detailed and thoughtful letter. We are all dissatisfied with our homeless situation, and the differences lie in what approach we take to the problem. It would take a thesis-length paper to address every single point that you bring up, so instead, this response addresses your concerns in a more general way. Please give this response your most thoughtful consideration.
Unfortunately, studies have shown that closing shelters and associated management services actually increases the cost of dealing with the homeless, largely in the form of increased law enforcement and incarceration expenses, which are substantial. Your "let them eat cake" approach has proven to not be a viable approach, as unlike with illegal immigrants, we can't just send the homeless back to where they came.
We are very interested in preventing SLO from becoming a "homeless magnet". However, even without homeless services, SLO would continue to be a magnet due to its moderate mediterranean climate and our generous citizens who reward panhandlers. Rather than turn away the homeless in SLO County, I would suggest that it is the responsibility of adjacent municipalities (Monterey, Kern and Santa Barbara counties) to do their fair share to address this problem - perhaps they are already doing so?
We discourage the public from giving directly to panhandlers, but instead, encourage them to donate to local agencies such as food kitchens, housing and homeless services. Witness the 7 new "parking" style meters downtown that accept donations for homeless services.
Read more here:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/04/24/3035936/parking-meters-prado-day-center.html
If our residents and visitors stopped giving money to panhandlers, then that behavior would stop. "Non-aggressive" panhandling has been ruled to be a constitutional first amendment right that we cannot legally outlaw and prosecute.
The most recent "count" of the homeless showed there to be about 2,200 homeless people in SLO County. This represents an actual head count at a given point in time, and is considered to be lower than the actual number. A high percentage of these 2,200 homeless are children under the age of 18 (12%) and homeless veterans. Do you believe we should be turning away homeless children and veterans?
Shelter space for the entire county is approximately 130 beds, leaving about 2,070 people still living on the street. On any given night, when all the shelter beds are full, 94% of the homeless are sleeping somewhere on the "street". It would not be logical to come to SLO in search of a shelter bed, given their scarcity, as the above numbers would suggest. The proposed new shelter's greatest benefit is not the additional shelter bed space, which is negligible, but locating all the support services in a single location.
The economic impact of the homeless on the economy is not clear. When my family moved here in 1992, many downtown storefronts were literally "boarded up", and businesses closed around 5pm on Friday and Saturday night - the place was "dead". Now, the exact opposite is true: we have a vibrant downtown, where all storefronts are occupied and there is economic activity late into the evening 7 nights a week. What effect do the homeless have on our economy is not clear, but appears to be negligible.
Our government awards disability payments to those who prove they are disabled and unable to work. Those disability payments are minimal, and are insufficient for living a "normal" life (rent, utilities, food, health care, etc.). It is not surprising that some may legally panhandle to supplement their meager income.
We believe in a "law and order" approach to dealing with the homeless and indeed, all of our citizens. Police should cite and prosecute violators of our laws. Citizens should call the police when they observe possible violations of the law. That would include reporting drunk people at Meadow Park, as well as other places, and let the police deal with the criminal behavior. SLO County has one of the lowest crime rates in California for counties with more than 20,000 people.
As you know, anecdotal evidence is not the same as comprehensive statistical data. It would appear that your knowledge of the homeless population centers around a fraction of the total homeless - perhaps the bad apples? My experience is different from yours. The homeless that I know are parents, many have jobs, struggle with disabilities or addiction but still want to work, and are trying to get back on their feet.
Having even a full-time job at minimum wage does not allow you to live indoors in our county. We have a very low average family income (compared to the rest of California) and very expensive housing, but we need workers at all pay levels. Low income workers are needed to support a service tourism industry - that's just a reality. My anecdotal evidence would directly contradict yours. It is unlikely that you would recognize the homeless people I know (also riding on your bus) as being homeless, thus you may not be including their behavior in your "analysis".
Many of us who volunteer our time to help the homeless believe that "there but for the grace of G*d go I". In other words, we know that it could be us instead of them. Anyone who believes they could never be homeless are kidding themselves, IMHO. It can happen to anyone, and does. We see homeless teachers, nurses, professors, contractors, plumbers and more. They all have stories to tell about a good life turning into a nightmare. Most homeless that I know are too embarrassed to let friends and family know what has happened to them. All they want to do is get back on their feet.
The compassion our community shows for the less fortunate is also one of the reasons that SLO is a great place to live - did you ever think of that? When I lived in Los Angeles, I never volunteered for any non-profits, and did not know anyone who did. After moving to SLO, the opposite is true: I volunteer for all kinds of great causes, and don't know anyone who doesn't!
CAPSLO provides a wide range of services, of which the Prado Day Center and the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter are but a small percentage. You can read more here:
http://www.capslo.org/programs
We support public discussion and debate about how to deal with homelessness, mental illness, crime, and a healthy business environment. I applaud you for finding a job and working, and encourage you to continue to get involved in helping to make our community a better place to live.
*****Original Letter from Jenny to SLO City Council Dated 7/11/2014*****
From: Jenny Lawson
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 8:03:36 PM
To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: Referendum Needed Regarding Future of Maxine and Prado, Severely Dissatisfied With Current Approach to Homelessness
To whom it may concern at City Hall,
I am writing you today, as a 25 year resident of San Luis Obispo who is severely dissatisfied with the approach and results of SLO's current approach to "ending homelessness".
I personally believe that many people currently representing the residents of SLO have the causal relational between the number of homeless and how full the shelter is backwards- The assumption that we need to build a larger homeless shelter because there is a high number of homeless could not be more fundamentally flawed.
I feel this is actually backwards- There is a high number of homeless people in SLO because services are provided.
San Luis Obispo is in a unique predicament- having a high number of tourists, college kids and very temperate weather. These factors alone attract homeless from all over the state and nation to our city. This is a rather unique scenario, so our approach to homelessness cannot be similar to approaches taken by other cities in areas not as attractive to the homeless as ours is. The worst approach to this problem would be to simply throw more and more resources into housing more and more homeless people as they show up here.
To be completely frank, If the new shelter is built, I plan on moving to another city, as I can't see any future for SLO should that happen. I have a feeling many others will be staying in town, but voting out our current leadership because of their approach to this issue.
The effects of the burgeoning homeless population are many on the SLO Resident taxpayer and business person:
Economic Implications:
It is clear that a large number of homeless people roaming the streets of SLO is bad for the economy and SLO businesses. It isn't just bad for downtown businesses and other businesses, where people are tired of seeing panhandlers, but it also is likely having a huge detrimental effect on our tourism industry especially.
There is nothing more off putting for a tourist than walking through a town full of homeless people, it's just a reality. Reading some reviews of SLO online by tourists, it doesn't take long until you see a trend: People think we have a serious homeless problem in this city, and they're right about that. It's one of the reasons tourists aren't coming here in the numbers they were maybe a decade ago (or even people from other parts of the county for that matter).
Of course, ask any shopkeeper downtown if they think we should be supporting Maxine and Prado, and I have a feeling you will be getting a very unified answer: No.
Panhandlers or signers as they like to call themselves go to cities where they know services are provided, and SLO is becoming panhandling central.
The very large gray haired man who sits downtown on Higuera at the exit to the Downtown Center with the sign saying "hungry" every single day is originally from Montana, he decided he would spend the rest of his life here panhandling thanks to the services provided specifically by Prado. If they weren't here, he wouldn't be here. He currently makes about $60 a day on average to supplement his disability pay-out (I will get more into how I know this later in the letter).
In the past few years, myself and my neighbors in the Meadow Park neighborhood have noticed a very high increase in the number of homeless people in our neighborhood and more generally the city of San Luis Obispo. For a while it was a drunk homeless person here or there, more and more we see middle aged men riding their bicycles around SLO daily with child carriers attached to their bikes, now even nine-foot long trailers attached to bikes and digging through people's trash cans, collecting cans, or passed out in the park near the playground.
While this seems like no big deal to many bleeding hearts in this city, tourists notice this kind of thing, residents notice this kind of thing, and shoppers notice this kind of thing and it is a very influential deciding factor for many people when deciding where they want to go shop or go visit. Nobody wants to be in an area with a high homeless population, it's not an attractive scenario.
So, essentially, while these people are down on their luck, enabling them and drawing them to SLO by providing every service they need to live that particular lifestyle is really hurting hard working SLO business people, our economy and our tax revenue, will also increasing crime. Which leads me to my next point.
Safety Issues:
It is hard to go to the park anymore without seeing several groups of homeless sitting around, usually smoking and drinking, or just wasting time until the Maxine Shelter opens at night having come from the Prado for their free lunch and breakfast. Innocent enough, right?
Well, having lived across the street from Meadow Park, it appears many of the people sitting at the park bench have actually been "casing" houses along Meadow Street, as my 80+ year old, recently widowed neighbor can attest to. Her name is Betty Little, and on July 4th, she had her car, and purse full of credit cards, ID and everything else stolen out of her house as she was asleep. As if losing her husband less than a year ago wasn't enough, she was in her house when it happened, and didn't hear the intruder only to wake up with the garage open and her car gone, and a bottle of hard liquor mixed with orange juice left in her house by the careless thief.
While it is speculation that this was a homeless person who stole her car as she slept in her house, just feet away, it isn't a huge stretch, as alcohol mixed with orange juice or other beverages is a staple of our local homeless population.
The only bright side to the story is that her car has been found, and is now being brought up from Southern California, but it doesn't change that her life has been forever altered and she won't even feel safe again in her own home, especially after losing her husband.
One can only imagine what would have happened had Betty Little woken up, and confronted the home intruder, perhaps she would be dead right now. Incidents like this, and many others are why our Meadow Park neighborhood is on edge and want changes made soon and want Maxine and Prado closed.
One alarming trend we have also noticed is that we are getting homeless people walking up to our front door after dark. When we answer the door usually they ask if we have food. It is always just after sunset they are doing this, it has happened three times now. The timing of the encounter very much makes you wonder about what their motives are, especially because food is already given out at Maxine for dinner. This isn't acceptable and appears to be just an attempt to see if anyone is home, so they can potentially break into the house if nobody answers the door after it is concluded the house is empty. We have a feeling this is happening more and more because we are between Maxine and Prado, and it's a heavily trafficked coradore for the thieving element of the homeless.
Our neighborhood is scared, and frankly sick and tired of the homeless "situation" as it has become over the past years. We collectively feel that it is a direct result of the Maxine Lewis and Prado Day Centers, and we would like them shut down.
It is a well known fact that the homeless population in town, while relatively small percentage wise compared to the tax-paying resident population creates an extremely high percentage of the total police and fire calls in town and uses valuable and limited resources for the same people time and time again.
This obviously diverts our taxpayer emergency resources toward this relatively small segment of the population, who apparently has nothing better to do than get completely wasted drunk on a daily basis and create police calls and send out the EMTs when they black out or become a general nuisance. This ultimately takes away resources from the taxpaying residents with legitimate safety problems and is focusing services on the same old bunch.
A large segment of the homeless population being attracted to SLO because of our services is also mentally ill and or an addict. So, we are attracting a segment of the state's and nation's population that is highly addicted to drugs and alcohol into our city, many of whom are mentally ill and many of whom have no interest in finding jobs ever. I apologize to those who are actually looking for jobs, but I really just don't think there are as many as claim to be, as unemployment is the lowest it has been in many years in the county and there are more and more homeless showing up here. Providing services which attract more and more homeless is a very dangerous and silly thing to do in my opinion.
I think getting rid of the security guards downtown and rebranding them "ambassadors" will ultimately prove a bad idea, but that's another issue altogether, it will likely take someone getting beaten or stabbed by a homeless drunk before people realize it was a bad decision.
"Homeless in Happy Town":
It is irresponsible to attract a highly drug/alcohol addicted, low skilled (if any skill) segment of the population to vegetate indefinitely in our city, who will likely never be able to afford housing here, and likely never will be able to find a job that pays enough to live here. It is irresponsible to be bringing people into this city, with the cost of living as high as it is (gas, housing, food) and expect them to ever fit in and get a job and be able to afford to live here.
The more responsible thing would be to not lead these people on, not attract them to this city and let them move to areas they could ultimately have a realistic expectation to be able to afford to live in, where the cost of living is lower, and there are more low-skilled jobs available. That is not the situation here in SLO. The reason we have so many homeless moving here is because they have given up on ever finding work, have conceaded that living in a nice town with great weather is the best scenario, and because of the services provided here in SLO that becomes the solution, not because those moving here feel they will ever have a job that pays enough to ever be able to afford to live here. This was also reflected in the findings of the KSBY report called "Homeless in Happy Town" which can be watched online still.
The KSBY "Homeless in Happy Town" independent (and "unscientific") survey found that 16/16 homeless people they interviewed were from out of the county and came here because they heard about what a great town it was to be homeless in (not because they were ever hoping to become gainfully employed). This contradicts the CAPSLO estimates of how many are local and how many are from out of county saying most are local, which I personally do not believe. I believe what they uncovered during the Homeless in Happy Town expose was much closer to the truth than what CAPSLO- an organization whose entire existance depends on indefinitely having a "problem to solve" and giving it a local angle would lead us to believe.
Many of the people they interviewed during the "Homeless in Happy Town" interviews had drinking or drug problems, were lounging in the parks all day long, and had no plan to ever return to a housed and gainfully employed existence. Living in our parks, drunk daily was the ultimate solution for them. The other interesting thing about this KSBY report was many of the people they interviewed said they were not looking for work, and had absolutely no intention of ever doing so. At least they were being honest, you have to give them that.
I'm sorry, but someone not looking for work and perpetually suckling off the city teat and sleeping in our parks all day, and often panhandling is not someone we should be attempting to attract to our city.
A final person interviewed in that KSBY series was a man with a large Rottweiler panhandling downtown who was complaining about how eggs and cereal wasn't a good enough breakfast to be served at Prado (bear in mind, this interview was conducted 4 years ago and he's still out there doing the same thing today). This kind of "entitled attitude" is extremely irking for a resident like myself who have watched this town turn into what it is now- We have someone who is here because of the meals and services we are providing them, and in turn, they are destroying the economy downtown and are scaring away for tourists and SLO residents and in the process they are complaining the free food they are getting.
SLO is 16% of the total county population, has 50% of the homeless population:
A startling statistic I read a few days ago in a news article comment section was this one, which really paints the picture: San Luis Obispo has 16% of the County's total population, yet has 50% of the homeless population in the county. I checked it, and it's correct. This is obviously a completely disproportionate share of the homeless population and a clear indication they are here because of the services we have providing (but hopefully stop doing so soon).
Why is it the residents of SLO must pay the collective price safety wise, economy and socially disproportionate to the rest of the county and nation?
This homeless influx appears to be a uniquely San Luis Obispo thing now, and the cities around us do not appear to have the same kind of problem going on to the extent we do with vagrants, so that makes me feel the reason we have such a very high "explosion" in the number of homeless in San Luis Obispo now can be directly attributed to the services this city has provided (at the detriment of the rest of the residents and businesses owners of SLO who have paid the price).
Police Chief Bledsoe also agreed with my belief in an interview: "[Bledsoe] believes the number of homeless people has increased... because of the nearby shelter and day center.” Bledsoe understood the obvious correlation between our enormous homeless population and our services - So, it makes me wonder why it is so many on the council feel building an even larger homeless shelter will be the "solution" to homelessness, when all that will do is exhaserbate our already precarious situation.
A larger homeless shelter will be the last nail in the coffin for this city, mark my words. It saddens me that many members of the city council and mayor appear to feel that the solution to homelessness is providing even more services- when all that will do will make the situation for our residents and businesses much worse. It is in fact the exact opposite approach being the solution. There are an infinite number of homeless across the country and nation who would love to relocate here for weather and panhandling reasons. We are in a unique situation regarding attracting homeless here, so there is no surprise any services provided will be maxed out. The plan to "solve homelessness by spending millions on a new, larger homeless shelter is assinine, as we are in a unique predicament. You could build a 10,000 bed homeless shelter, and it would likely be full in a year, such is the power of free cellphones and word of mouth today.
It is also unfair that the shelter be placed in the South side of town, near many of the hard working, yet lower income people who have sacrificed to live in SLO. If the shelter location were in the north side of town, I have a feeling there would be a serious outcry. The south side of town people are by and large too tired after their long hours to complain anymore, or feel to disenfranchised by the lack of public say in the matter to even care anymore. If the proposed location for the even larger shelter were on Foothill I have a feeling we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now, but there is a disconnect between the "decision makers" and the area of town most affected by these two centers- I haven't researched where the city council members and mayor live, it isn't my business, but I have a feeling it isn't anywhere near where these facilities are located.
Now, I might be coming off sounding like a mean person, or a unsympathetic person or what have you, but having a large homeless population in our city brings only negatives for our actual tax paying resident's, safety, and negatives to our businesses locally. We are likely going to be creating more homeless- In the form of SLO business owners who go belly up because nobody wants to come into town to shop or visit anymore.
I remember a day when you could go down to Farmer's market and there weren't 5 or 6 or 10 panhandlers hanging around. I remember a SLO maybe 8 years ago when you could walk the entire length of Higuera Street at any time of day or night and not run into one homeless person begging. I remember a SLO years ago when our parks were not completely filled with homeless people "killing time" all day long at the same picnic benches and spots day after day usually smoking and drinking. I remember when there wasn't needles in our riparian habitats.
I have friends from other parts of the county who say they don't come into SLO anymore to go downtown because they are tired of being hassled by homeless and don't feel it's safe for families anymore. People are afraid of what might happen. The woman who got spit in the face is a good example, I'm sure she's not heading downtown anymore. There are many more like her who likely didn't even report what happened to them with similar or less significant interactions. I completely understand where they are coming from. I used to be proud to show off SLO to visitors, but now it's not quite the same place it was, it's a homeless hangout.
How I am "In the know" about why the homeless are here:
I work as a transit worker and I drive many of the homeless around and hear their conversations on a daily basis, which gives me some insights many people likely never hear being City Council members, or even CAPSLO workers. I overhear converstations of all sorts, all day long, and because one of my main passenger types is "career" panhandlers and homeless and I know what they're saying whether I want to hear it or not.
One particular gentleman who has been downtown for the last 6 years pandhandling (the man from Montana) talks with other regular professional panhandlers on the bus after sitting around collecting money from locals and tourists. They often share stories about how much they are making a day (which seems to range from $60-$90 dollars on a good day tax free of course for about 6 hours of sitting on the sidewalk, much better than minimum wage, and receives disability on top of that).
What really interested me was several conversations they had about how great it was to be homeless here in SLO, mostly because our police really don't seem to enforce any of the ordinances and never seem to give them tickets for smoking or drinking, but also because of Prado and Maxine. They made it quite clear the SLOPD are very accommodating to their lifestyles and are much "nicer" to them than police they have run into in other cities such as Atascadero, Carmel and Monterey. The homeless talk to each other quite a lot and know where the "soft" locations are: Such as San Luis Obispo (hence our current situation), and the "Hard" locations are (where police are strict and not accomodating and actually enforce their city statutes) such as Carmel and even Atascadero. It is well known by "signers" (as panhandlers call themselves) where the cities where the police are strict with the law and those areas where police will give them a free pass "slap on the wrist" SLO has a reputation as being one of the best and easiest places to be a panhandler.
Secondly, I overhear many homeless talk about telling their friends and family to come to SLO because of the services provided. I have overheard cellphone calls to friends (they're of course not supposed to be talking on the phone, but I have given up asking them not to) telling them to come up to SLO, "there's a shelter". Not a day goes by when a new person from out of town comes up to me asking me where the "day care Center" (that's what they call it) is and where Maxine is. These people are from out of town and are coming here because of those facilities.
The strange thing is, in my two years of driving public transit in SLO, I have never once been asked by a homeless person where the One-Stop Employment Center is (formerly Creekside). Not once. I had to use the services they provided a few years back, when I was trying very hard to find a better job, so I know that's the first place you go if you're serious about finding a job. I was planning on moving to another part of the country where I couldn't find a high enough paying job to stay in this area, as I understand you move to areas you can afford to live in, where the economy is hiring. The particular segment of homeless attracted to SLO don't appear to care about finding a job, or they would be asking where the One-Stop employment center is, but that is a question that has NEVER come up. They ask where social services is all the time, but never the employment center. That tells me something about this segment of the population.
I think the taxpaying residents and business owners in SLO are getting played, and are getting the short end of the stick. I think our city is going to be changed for the worst forever, and very dramatically by a segment of the population who by and large has little intention of changing their lifestyles, and should be moving to an area with more affordable housing if they were realistic about being housed, but is able to be strung along here because of CAPSLO's day center and shelter.
A side question for you, the city council and mayor is: Is there any motivating factor for Dee Torres et. al managing CAPSLO to actually reduce the total number of "clients" they take care of?, or is it in fact the opposite kind of motivation, where they receive more money the more homeless people that show up in SLO? Is there any motivation at all for them to reduce the homeless population at all?
If there is no motivation in place to reduce the number of "clients", to me that would seem like a seriously flawed system.
It is obvious that persistently drunk and drugged out homeless not looking for work and "living the life in a temperature climate" in a city attempting to attract tourists is not a good thing, and they are more than an eyesore for residents and create a large amount of phone calls for police and fire, placing a burden on our already taxed emergency services and clogging up emergency lines with the same problem individuals passing out drunk or causing problems for those tax paying residents of SLO who have a legitimate emergency and are therefore causing a safety issue.
So, we are dealing with serious economic, safety and quality of life problems arising from Prado and Maxine that if those enabling centers were not here anymore would not exist to such great an extent.
We need a public vote:
What I am about to propose might sound mean spirited or radical, but in my opinion it should be considered a very serious alternative to our current path, and I hope a referendum is held to let the residents of SLO vote and decide our future. We need to have a vote held, and soon regarding whether or not we want to not only stop the 100 bed expansion and creation of a multi-million dollar homeless shelter, but also give SLO residents the option to permanently CLOSE both Prado and Maxine. If churches want to give out beds, that's their porogative, but the residents of SLO should have some say in the matter regarding the existing shelter and day center's existence.
We need to allow the voters- the tax paying residents of SLO to have a say, which has been largely absent from the conversation as-so-far regarding the burgeoning homeless population. I think a lot of local residents are being tired of not having a say in the matter personally.
That is the first priority in my opinion (closing Prado and Maxine), the second priority should be fare enforcement of our city laws, which frankly, I don't see happening right now. It seems the homeless are getting a "free pass" to be more drunk than the rest of the population and get away with more than the rest of the population because the police don't feel they'll be able to generate revenue from them, while hard working people are being ticketed for minor traffic violations and college kids are being given tickets downtown at a much higher rate. It doesn't appear the homeless are ever given tickets for smoking in public (which they seem to do 24/7 in the same places day after day).
I would like to see the smoking ordinance enforced, and would like to see more fair and judicial drunk in public tickets given out because I have not seen any tickets written in working around City Hall/The Courthouse in over 3 years and bike police ride by and must smell and see the same people smoking and getting belligerently drunk daily and are doing nothing, even after being called by us transit workers informing them of a severely drunk person. This needs to change. Also, I have noticed more and more homeless people j-walking accross the road, creating a serious safety issues, likely while drunk when there are crosswalks nearby. If enforcement were more strict, many of these people would either stop, or move somewhere else where enforcement was more lax.
Working around the Transit Center, the same problem homeless segment of the population are smoking all the time and drinking all the time and police on bicycles ride through all day and do absolutely nothing. We need tickets to be written for the smoking ban, and more fair drunk in public enforcement no matter what one's social standing- or just get rid of it, because it's becoming a joke for the homeless and others. I personally think the smoking ban is a great thing, and would love to see it strictly enforced, but without any sort of enforcement, I have noticed few are following the law we all voted on.
Where will we be in five or ten years?
Either San Luis Obispo becomes one of the largest homeless-centric towns in the state of California the likes of Santa Cruz, or we get our city back, quality of life back, and safety back, and make this a business, resident and tourist friendly city- or we head further down the path we are currently headed on, which is bleak.
As much as we would love to house all of the homeless of the state and nation here in SLO, that is a foolhardy endeavor. We are in a unique situation with our weather and panhandling possibilities to become a homeless magnet the likes that other cities around the state and nation could never imagine.
Therefore, it is not fair to the residents of SLO to have to see our quality of life, safety, and potential for income damaged because of Prado and Maxine centers. The city of SLO will not ever "end homelessness" as hard as it may try by building more and more services, and will only attract more homeless. Ending homelessness will only happen at the national level. Ending homelessness will require people moving to areas they can afford to live in, with economies which can support their skills. Ending homelessness will require our federal government making huge changes, changes they appear to be unwilling to make currently, but this is not our problem. Ending homelessness will ultimately require improving the overall national economy, and setting up programs like the Civilian Conservation Crops (which worked great historically to end poverty) but until then, our city council should not be hellbent on destroying the quality of life and safety for the hard working and taxpaying SLO resident in a naive attempt to end homelessness, using an approach which will only increase the problem and destroy our quality of life, safety and economy. Instead, they should be looking out for the best interests of the SLO resident taxpayer, and keeping Maxine and Prado open is NOT in the best interest of the SLO resident taxpayer in my humble opinion.
We have nothing to gain from continuing the enabling of a problem segment of the population.
We need a public referendum on this issue and we need the taxpaying residents of SLO to get more of say in this, because our city is changing in a very bad way, and it's happening faster than many people are willing to admit. I think if the new shelter is built you will be seeing an exodus of business and residents who have been here for decades to other parts of the state and nation to cities who have not taken the same failed approach to homelessness we have.
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Fed up SLO Resident
No comments:
Post a Comment