Homeless encampments along the Joe Rodota Trail

doghairnancy wrote:

Quote:

---

"...This problem isn't going to go away at any cost the county is going to be able to reckon with. If we build housing for the homeless, the cost is going to be prohibitive (remember the $133K tiny houses for vets?) and the working poor are going to wonder why nobody worries about their precarious situation..."

---

Nancy, the long-term solution is to open up a portion of the two hundred and forty-five million [245,000,000] acres that the Bureau of Land Management is "managing" to Homesteads - in two schedules of parcels: one for the Homeless, and another for the "working poor" - as I have written over on the other thread.

In the wilderness, one doesn't need sewer hook-ups or being connected to the grid; solar panels suffice. The cost of building a tiny house out of rammed-earth blocks is a tiny fraction of the cost that those homes for vets cost. I would wager that it can be done for about two and a half thousand dollars - if the working poor & homeless candidates for the Homesteads would do the work themselves - as in former times.

The issue of Homelessness is too big for the Counties to be able to solve alone. All the county should have to do is provide temporary warm accommodations during the cold season - and a large lot {or two or three} somewhere for a Tent City where the Homeless may camp when it is warm and dry. At the present hour a warm, dry place is the urgent need of all of the Homeless in California, and across the nation.

Open Up the Armories!!

Shandi, I think you're on target !

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

Mary, you say that you "lived in that world". Would you share some of your personal story of living homeless, ...

---

THE USE OF CONVERTED STORAGE CONTAINERS

This video made me smile listening to the affects providing safe temporary housing to those homeless and what it means to them. The video shows how used storage containers can be converted into temporary housing where you can stay upwards to 18 months but most were ready much sooner and left for their self supporting permanent housing. One formerly homeless person simply said , “when you have a home all of the sudden everything else falls into place”. The project makes it mandatory that after someone builds for you ,you build for someone else. The program doesn’t just convert storage containers , it converts people.

They also used donated old school buses that were for converted in emergency overnight shelters where you can stay up to 2 nights with each bus accommodating 6 individuals in twin bed size sleeping areas. Reading ways other communities have set these and the converted storage containers up quickly was not to complicate with plumbing/sewer/water challenges , but by bringing in a portable trailer like facilities for these purposes with the tiny houses surrounding them. Where toilets were placed in some designs, they used composting toilet designs.

There are many videos out there and designs . I chose this one because it included the human factor. There are design kits avail free of charge for converting and can be done including purchasing the container with minimal constructional design for about $2,500 $3,600. Project completion time estimates (depending on volunteers available) 2-3 weeks. Again we are talking solutions for emergency and temporary transitional housing here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ASP...ature=emb_logo

Los Angeles County was awarded grant funds to their Public Healthcare Agency to be used for housing the homeless specifically those identified as having an impact on the MediCal system. The State Healthcare Agency does not usually allocate funds for housing. A study showed the longer a person remains homeless, the more money it ends up costing in MediCal services directly related to enduring health issues from living on the streets.

It's obvious that people need somewhere on the outskirts of Santa Rosa and other towns to park rvs and build shanties and set up tents. When you got nothing but the cold ground a tent and a cot is a mansion. When you got a tent and a cot an old rv is a mansion. Way back you could build a hobo house out of old pallets along a rail line if you were down and out. Almost no one wants to live in a shelter. Urban camping is a lot better for most. There are thousands of old rvs that don't run but would make acceptable shelter if there were a place you could locate them. It's happening anyway. It would be far better to provide areas that have sewer hookups or a community bathroom.

I want to add weight to this opinion. You are absolutely right! I tried to help three homeless people recently and I' m still paying for that decision. These were not people on the trail. They had jobs, dressed well, and they were intelligent. They were living in their cars and I had extra space. I did background checks, asked about drug use, told them I did not allow illegal drugs ... Blah, blah, blah ... They were all on meth ...moved in, stopped paying rent and wouldn't leave. What is the county doing about this giant meth problem? This isn't the first time I've been hurt by this. Someone is making a whole lot of money destroying lives, thus endangering us all. I tried to clean up my own neighborhood only to face massive retaliation.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mary C:

http://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccob...4_17-48-38.png
Commentary: When helping isn’t helpful
By Mary Carouba
...

---

It's about compassion.

Even though you've been burned, even though you were taken advantage of... the human heart is always ready to offer compassion to another, because that's what compassion is all about! We're all in this boat together.

There, on the Joe Rodota Trail, but for the grace of God, it could be me.

Hafiz says:

Even after all this time
the sun never says to the earth,
"You owe me."

Look what happens
with a love like that -
It lights the whole world!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

I want to add weight to this opinion. You are absolutely right! I tried to help three homeless people recently and I' m still paying for that decision. ...

---

"Compassion ... Forgivness ... Acceptance"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

it's about compassion.
...

---

I have also brought a homeless man into my space, and although he wasn't on meth or any other heavy drug, he began to gaslight me, and tell me he was my "spiritual teacher". It took me a year to get him out, and even though I warned friends about him, two of my women friends also took him in, after I finally got him out. He burned them too. He was a very successful manipulator. And I learned from that experience not to bring anyone into my space that I don't know. Hell, even when we know them, people can be triggered by stress, and lash out on us. It happens in relationships all the time.

I've also had the experience of being emotionally abused by home owners, while renting a room from them. They had jobs, a nice home, and appeared mentally healthy, but within a couple of months, the truth of their emotional instability showed itself. They weren't drug addicts, unless you count daily wine consumption, and smart phone addiction.

My very good friend tells me not to give unless I have "surplus". She knows how my giving nature has hurt me when I give on a personal level. Now, I try to give only from a distance, or through an organized charity.
I learned that I can't risk losing the little I have, and it's important to consider the potential downside of my giving. The "what ifs".

Giving a pair of shoes to someone without any is very different than bringing that person into our homes. We have to realize the risk, especially if we've had the experience already. We need to be kind to ourselves first, and kindly ruthless to those who may ultimate cause us grief, even unintentionally. We can't know these things ahead of time, so we need to evaluate the potential for risk as much as possible.

Meth is a life destroyer, easy to find and get addicted to, and cheap. It was originally made available to the inner cities, as a way to control minorities, and has now spread far and wide. It gives a temporary high, as a way to escape the constant suffering. Even though the consequences of using are very visible, it provides momentary relief from the ravages of the horrible reality of living on the street, or the apparent safety of shelters.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

I want to add weight to this opinion. You are absolutely right! I tried to help three homeless people recently and I' m still paying for that decision. ...

---

https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png arthunter wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
I want to add weight to this opinion. You are absolutely right! I tried to help three homeless people recently and I' m still paying for that decision. ...


Shandi wrote:

Quote:

---

I have also brought a homeless man into my space, and although he wasn't on meth or any other heavy drug, he began to gaslight me, and tell me he was my "spiritual teacher". It took me a year to get him out, and even though I warned friends about him, two of my women friends also took him in, after I finally got him out. He burned them too. He was a very successful manipulator. And I learned from that experience not to bring anyone into my space that I don't know. Hell, even when we know them, people can be triggered by stress, and lash out on us. It happens in relationships all the time...

---

Duly noted, that one will generally encounter with difficulty when one brings strangers into one's space. Many of us have had the same or similar experiences in that regard. Nevertheless, no one should be homeless, even if taking them in - as 'friends' or as renters is not practical.

= Bottom Line is Still the Same =

Ending Chronic Homelessness Saves Taxpayers Money

If anyone is attending any future meetings where there is another argument on finding money to fund even an interim solution. I recently remembered a source of imcome the City of SR should be generating. It’s worth inquiring and asking for some due diligence be sprinkled on it too. The City of Santa Rosa requires Landlords with 3 or more residential rental spaces/units, to have a Business License and Tax Certificate and pay a business tax based on gross receipts. The amount is calculated by using the formula below. Basically it’s going to be $3,000 a year for most.

I know from researching this previously that very very few rental properties (landlords ) comply and the city explained at least to me it doesn’t have the man power to track this down. It’s kind of on the good faith policy. Don’t know why it’s so hard, I can think of quite a few turn key solutions. If you do get caught though there are substantial penalties and back taxes due. Not sure how often that happens either.

Since it’s all related to housing, seems it could earmark a portion towards funding a solution to those we don’t have room for anywhere else. Maybe I missed something here. I do know the last 3 landlords I had were clueless they’d need a business license. It’s a business !?! Just a thought.

• $25 plus $0.34 per every $1,000 in gross receipts (or portion thereof) over $25,000
• Maximum tax = $3,000

I was at a public meeting on Wed Dec 11, where Sonoma Co Supervisor Shirley Zane, Santa Rosa Mayor Tom Schwedhelm and the Healdsburg mayor were the speakers. In the Q&A, I suggested that public land be make available for those living on the Joe Rodota trail. Both Supervisor Zane and Mayor Schwedhelm were against it, offering the typical excuses that it was too much of a burden on public services, and difficulties in control.

What's ludicrous is that Homeless Action! in Santa Rosa has a grant of $450k for services to the homeless, such as caseworkers, but they can't find a property where a "sanctioned encampment" is possible. Here is one hand of the government offering help, and the other hand refusing to help. The answer is for the County or City to make some land available. The public owns the land. This would be a great use for the land, and relieve human suffering.

Thanks for this post. It is ludicrous. It encapsulates at the local level what is happening nationally and internationally -- officials with neither heart nor vision who continually abdicate their responsibility for sustaining the public welfare -- the welfare of all the people. Officials have to be forced into doing the right thing. Beyond the ballot, the force we have is a massive grassroots demonstration based on clear demands and feasible options. I hope that's being organized.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

I was at a public meeting ....

---

Cynthia Poten wrote:

Quote:

---

Thanks for this post. It is ludicrous. It encapsulates at the local level what is happening nationally and internationally -- officials with neither heart nor vision who continually abdicate their responsibility for sustaining the public welfare -- the welfare of all the people. Officials have to be forced into doing the right thing. Beyond the ballot, the force we have is a massive grassroots demonstration based on clear demands and feasible options. I hope that's being organized.

---

tommy wrote:

Quote:

---

I was at a public meeting on Wed Dec 11, where Sonoma Co Supervisor Shirley Zane, Santa Rosa Mayor Tom Schwedhelm and the Healdsburg mayor were the speakers. In the Q&A, I suggested that public land be make available for those living on the Joe Rodota trail. Both Supervisor Zane and Mayor Schwedhelm were against it, offering the typical excuses that it was too much of a burden on public services, and difficulties in control.

What's ludicrous is that Homeless Action! in Santa Rosa has a grant of $450k for services to the homeless, such as caseworkers, but they can't find a property where a "sanctioned encampment" is possible. Here is one hand of the government offering help, and the other hand refusing to help. The answer is for the County or City to make some land available. The public owns the land. This would be a great use for the land, and relieve human suffering.

---

"A massive grassroots demonstration based on clear demands and feasible options..."

Amen to that. This is a cause that is worth putting one's body on the picket line for. Not only does the County of Sonoma own "public land" that is nearby the Joe Rodota Trail; the State of California also owns land (in Trust for "We the People") that would be quite suitable for tiny houses & tiny villages, also.

Again, I would also emphasize that the Bureau of Land Management is sitting on over two hundred and forty-five million [245,000,000] acres of the so-called "Public Domain" - most of which is located in eleven western states.

Would it be reasonable and feasible for a grassroots movement to demand that twenty million arable and live-able acres of that terrain of "Public Domain" be made available for Homesteading, once again?

Anyone may attend the meetings of Homeless Action! - and anyone can participate in their scheduled events. They meet every Monday, between 9:30 and 11:00 at the Methodist Church just east of Memorial Hospital on Montgomery Avenue in Santa Rosa.

As Tommy comments "they can't find a property where a "sanctioned encampment" is possible".

So now, they have an "unsanctioned encampment" out of control, in their face, and in the faces of everyone who passes by this homeless tent city on the JR Trail. This is a shameful situation that points to a serious inefficiency and lack of intelligence and caring with Santa Rosa officials to follow the examples of what many other cities are doing to solve this growing problem all over the US, and beyond. If only they could see their own loved ones in the faces of the homeless, they would take action to protect and shelter their family and friends.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

...What's ludicrous is that Homeless Action! in Santa Rosa has a grant of $450k for services to the homeless, such as caseworkers, but they can't find a property where a "sanctioned encampment" is possible. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:

As Tommy comments "they can't find a property where a "sanctioned encampment" is possible"...

---

since I used a different Heller quote the other day in a different thread, the book's in my mind. But does "the dead man in Yossarian's tent" ring a bell? Sometimes people are helpless to solve a problem that poses no problem at all to someone else. People in government are so used to dealing with the reasons why you shouldn't do something that they find it hard if not impossible to act strongly enough to solve the problem, even if the need to adopt a different approach is obvious to anyone else. Kinda hard to blame them too much - we don't really want the government running amok and making decisions that violate some rules just because they feel it's necessary. But in this case, they kinda need to anyway.

The officials on every level make decisions that violate basic human dignity, the well-being of all living beings, and the welfare of the planet. The government IS "running amok" and has been for a very long time, not just since Trump became "king".

I subscribe to the Good News Network to learn of positive actions in our world, so that I don't fall victim to the depression and rage that I sometimes feel if by chance I get contaminated with even a bit of the standard news that the masses clamor for.

Here's something that came in today that shows how one community has built 3D printed homes in Mexico."The resilient, 500-square-foot homes were each 3D printed in around 24 hours of print time across several days by ICON, a construction technologies company, and feature final construction build out by ÉCHALE, New Story’s nonprofit partner in Mexico. The built-to-last homes alocated in rural Tabasco, Mexico.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

... Kinda hard to blame them too much - we don't really want the government running amok and making decisions that violate some rules just because they feel it's necessary. But in this case, they kinda need to anyway.

---

Lynda Hopkins states "The Community Development Commission is dedicated to creating homes for all in thriving and inclusive neighborhoods" I looked up "inclusive community" and found this:

"An inclusive community: Does everything that it can to respect all its citizens, gives them full access to resources, and promotes equal treatment and opportunity. Works to eliminate all forms of discrimination. Engages all its citizens in decision-making processes that affect their lives. Values diversity. Responds quickly to racist and other discriminating incidents."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Farmer Lynda:

[This is Lynda Hopkins' post from Thanksgiving posted on Facebook - Barry :waccosun:]

---

...
• Regional Parks' mission is to provide public access to safe, clean parks and trails. The Community Development Commission is dedicated to creating homes for all in thriving and inclusive neighborhoods. We are committed to working collaboratively with the City of Santa Rosa to address the Joe Rodota Trail encampment and homelessness within our shared jurisdiction.

---

Maybe the combination of your posts got at least some temporary help...

It was Supervisor Zane who made announcement today. She sounded almost defensive about this 'emergency' measure - to relocate homeless along Joe Rodota trail to So Co Fairgrounds. It sounded
like it was only for cold and rainy weather, not certain about that.

The plan is to use the horse stalls at the Fairgrounds... NO IDEA what they're like. There'll be portable toilets,
showers, counselors available, and 24/7 security....

2 more homeless articles in PD

http://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccob...4_15-56-29.png

Supreme Court lets stand ruling that protects homeless people who sleep on public land

and

County proposes robust emergency measures to address homeless crisis

MARTIN ESPINOZA
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT December 14, 2019, 8:37PM

County officials are set to unveil Tuesday a set of emergency measures aimed at addressing the homeless crisis that has spilled into public view along the Joe Rodota Trail and elsewhere, including the possible creation of short-term indoor and outdoor shelters at the Sonoma County Fairgrounds.

The measures — all potential options at this point — are being hailed as the most robust steps taken by local officials to house some of the county’s 3,000 homeless people. The steps are in some ways inspired by recent emergency responses to natural disasters such as wildfires and floods.

The proposals will be presented before the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

“During the Kincade fire we were able to mobilize a massive response — we need that level of response to the homeless crisis,” said Supervisor Lynda Hopkins, whose district includes the Joe Rodota Trail between Santa Rosa and Sebastopol. “We need to wake up and treat it like the crisis is it.”

Hopkins called the proposals “revolutionary for Sonoma County” and an attempt to break from a previous pattern of shutting down homeless encampments and offering only temporary shelter, pushing the problem to some other location in the county.

“We declared an emergency a year and a half ago, but we didn’t treat it like an emergency,” she said.

County officials said one of the main goals of the emergency measures is finding a safer, temporary location for as many as 185 people currently living in tents along the Joe Rodota Trail, between Stony Point and Wright roads. The camp includes more than 100 tents and shelters and has become a humanitarian crisis. It is now considered by many to be the largest homeless camp Santa Rosa has known.

One of the options being proposed is to set up this month a temporary indoor and outdoor shelter at the county fairgrounds for those currently living on the trail and others. Officials said the shelter would have 24/7 security, on-site supervision and screening and medical and mental health support services.

Geoffrey Ross, executive directer of the county Community Development Commission, which is presenting the proposals to supervisors, said the pilot shelter at the fairgrounds would be zero tolerance for on-site drug use but that people would not be turned away if they were under the influence upon entering.

Ross said the “outdoor” portion of the emergency shelter would be an area where people could hang out, lie down, rest and be comfortably sheltered, as some people cannot handle barracks-style indoor shelters. They would be given access to water, sanitation, electricity, social services and heat.

The other proposals include:

• Expanding available “rapid-rehousing” opportunities using local dollars. The program, which provides immediate rental assistance aimed at getting the most vulnerable homeless people off the street, uses federal funds.
• Establishing safe camping and parking sites using county property and potential partners such as religious organizations or private property owners.
• Expanding efforts to reunify families, potentially reaching as many as 30 people currently living on the Joe Rodota Trail.
• Subsidizing stays at public or private campgrounds for those who decline service and prefer to camp. This would include group and small tent sites.
• *Using several multiple bedroom homes or apartments to house groups of people who have formed family-like bonds while living in encampments. This allows communities formed on the streets to remain intact.

"One of the options being proposed is to set up this month a temporary indoor and outdoor shelter at the county fairgrounds for those currently living on the trail and others. Officials said the shelter would have 24/7 security, on-site supervision and screening and medical and mental health support services."

Exactly what most of these folks don't want. Most want someplace where they will be left to do their own thing, not be policed, or on-site supervised, screened or mental health messed with. Now take that giant field east of the fair grounds and let people do their thing. Most of that field is never used even during the fair. Then spend that nearly half million on 200 to 300 Home Depot sheds. They will deliver them free. You can put out toilets. Let folks pitch tents set up tipis and pull in rvs and call it good. You can offer all the services you want in one of the buildings at the fair grounds.

We have to face the fact we are turning into a third world country. The rich have everything and the middle is dying out. Add the closure of all the mental hospitals by Regan and this is a complete mess and only going to get worse. In the 60s you could walk into a mental hospital an get treatment for mental illness or addiction free of charge. The least we can do is put aside some public land for shanty towns. There is nothing wrong with living in a decent tent. My parents and older siblings did it for more than a year when they built their house in Petaluma. I don't see anything wrong with letting the folks who have set up shelters of one sort or another on the trail to stay there if they want. It seems cruel to move them all over the the fair grounds and them run them out in the summer.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:

"One of the options being proposed is to set up this month a temporary indoor and outdoor shelter at the county fairgrounds for those currently living on the trail and others. Officials said the shelter would have 24/7 security, on-site supervision and screening and medical and mental health support services."

Exactly what most of these folks don't want. Most want someplace where they will be left to do their own thing, not be policed, or on-site supervised, screened or mental health messed with.

---

as a practical matter, that's not going to be the policy. With luck it'll be the eventual outcome, but you can't have government help without (at least the appearance of) government oversight. That'll be part of the price of getting the voters to put up the money without too much squawking.

This partial solution could easily happen in Santa Rosa:

Tiny House Villages For Seattle’s Homeless by Low Income Housing Institute

Supes To Discuss Options For Tent-Dwellers Along Joe Rodota Trail https://patch.com/california/rohnert...e-rodota-trail

Keep in mind that this is in part, a seasonal development. As a long time volunteer at the Morgan Street homeless services center, year after year we saw a doubling of need for people to receive services. We considered it flushing of the culverts and saw the same folks year after year. I know of several women who got pregnant at the Armory shelter thereby assuring them of services for a couple of years. This encampment will be made invisible for the time being, but the needs will be ignored when the sun comes out.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Goat Rock Ukulele:

"One of the options being proposed is to set up this month a temporary indoor and outdoor shelter at the county fairgrounds for those currently living on the trail and others. Officials said the shelter would have 24/7 security, on-site supervision and screening and medical and mental health support services."

Exactly what most of these folks don't want. ...

---

Homeless Action! has $.5 /million to spend on homeless. .

where do you think the money is going to come from when a 60yr. old senior comes down w/pneumonia
after living in a tent in a ditch in the middle of winter? What's that going to cost for a week's stay in a hospital,
and when she 's released, is she back to a tent in a rainwater ditch?

There are some generalizations in your post, that are not accurate. I don't think it's true that most people wouldn't want shelter at the fairgrounds. Likely there are some, but in this cold rainy weather, many would like some kind of shelter that is not wet or cold. Women and parents with children would also like it, for protection, as there are predators in homeless camps. There are also some that would welcome rehabilitation services, so they don't spend the rest of their lives homeless.

I agree it would be cruel to let them move to the fairgrounds, then run them out in the summer. A government sponsored encampment would let them live there throughout the year.

Welcome to the wine country! This shameful, distressing, and disgusting situation is being shared by countries outside ours. See the DailyMail.Co.UK's article on the mile long homeless tent city. Maybe the fact that this might keep tourists away, would be a prod at the city officials to take steps to mitigate this horrendous problem.

See pictures of the JR trail folks, and other homeless encampments elsewhere in Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7798083

I completely agree with you!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

... I don't think it's true that most people wouldn't want shelter at the fairgrounds. ...

---

3 richest Americans holding more wealth than the bottom 50%. That is messed up, That math says to me they could buy a condo for every single homeless person and hardly feel it. have fun getting your camel through that needle eye. My hat is off to the guy who went down there with a slew of tarps and couple hundred yards of visqueen.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tommy:

... I don't think it's true that most people wouldn't want shelter at the fairgrounds....

---

That would depend on what the shelter at the fairgrounds is to be, what the rules are or not.

Certainly most folks along the trail would like better shelter at the fair grounds or any other place. I'm saying what they don't want is to be housed in big rooms with the next guy snoring 4 feet away with lights out at 10pm little or no privacy. At least half the people that have been long term on the street are mentally ill and want/need to self medicate. There are also many addicts that would be able to function if they quit using. Many in this group only recover when it gets just as bad as it can.

I don't believe there are many women with children along the path that don't want to be there. Shelters prioritize women and children for obvious reasons. And certainly they want and need services of all kinds. But most also want one of the only things they have left, freedom to come and go as they please, to have a pets with them or not, to build a hovel no matter how humble, to get stoned or not, to not be managed or over policed, to be able to move their tent a hundred yards down with a friend they made, to not be relocated in June because the fair is coming up, etc.

I'm for letting people build shanties and bringing in Rvs certain areas or bringing in Home Depot sheds. Native Americans lived here for 10,000 years in hovels of sticks and thatch, an old RV is so much better than that. We have made the requirements of a dwelling so safe (and expensive) that growing numbers can't afford to live in one.

We are reaching the point where we need economic refugee camps along the lines of a Drs without Borders operation in a war zone. 43% greater homeless population in Los Angeles according to one article I read. We are in an emergency and building code rules need to be suspended for some. It costs $10 to put a smoke detector in tough shed to make it relatively safe. But as someone else said the county/city can never do something like that. They are paralyzed by rules and regulations.

Put those Home Depot Sheds, Tents, Rvs all round that mile and a quarter race track, I'm sick of seeing horses pushed past their limit, breaking down and being shot anyway.

How about parks departments building enormous public membership indoor tennis clubs that can be used for beds for the homeless at night and tennis and/or other indoor sports during the day. People using the tennis courts could help cover the cost of construction/maintaining the building.

Deep State war more and more apparent:

Criminalizing homelessness - versus - Houston's relatively successful approach of redirecting resources towards PERMANENT housing: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/...elters/603670/

Wonder if Ben Carson our (sic) Housing Secretary will use FEMA camps, as well as former prisons and federal buildings - if this proceeds to Executive Order status? Santa Rosa is in his sights, along w/ 19 other California cities and 4 states.

Quote:

---

Advocates say that they expect an executive order on homelessness to assign new resources to police departments to remove homeless encampments and even strip housing funds from cities that choose to tolerate these encampments.

Carson’s latest stop is yet another signal that the administration is keen to take a hands-on approach to people who sleep on the street. Advocates say that the government is looking closely at ways to turn former correctional facilities and federal buildings into shelters, a controversial approach backed by Robert Marbut, the newly appointed White House czar on homelessness.

In addition to 20 cities, four of the places named on the list are states that have homeless populations outside the largest urban centers.

....In September, when the White House released a report on homelessness, it signaled a change away from the Housing First direction long favored by the Interagency Council on Homelessness. Going forward, the administration appears to be leaning on a prominent role for law enforcement, with a focus on shelters that sequester homeless people away from downtown in large, centralized facilities.

....Late in November, an official at HUD sent an email to Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler and other officials in Oregon to express Carson’s interest in determining whether an unused jail in Portland could be repurposed for a pilot program to address homelessness, according to a report in Willamette Week

...The Trump administration may pursue its agenda on homelessness on other fronts. An executive order—said to be the brainchild of Benjamin Hobbs, special assistant to the president for domestic policy—might not materialize for weeks (if ever)....

But the broader campaign to criminalize homelessness hit a snag on Monday, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case from Boise, Idaho, about whether local and state governments can make it a crime for people to sleep outside.

---

Here is the SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA of The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
To be held Monday 12/23 9:00am on an EMERGENCY RESOLUTION TO HOMELESS ISSUES and JR TRAIL RESIDENTS

See Agenda here

You can see the attached documents, including a PDF of a Powerpoint presentation here

Very Interesting.

If someone does peek at the agenda items being proposed, please confirm my math. I think it reads a 2019-2020 budget approval of 12 million dollars to serve 120 people.

http://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccob...4_15-56-29.png

Sonoma County supervisors approve $11 million in emergency spending on Santa Rosa homeless encampment
TYLER SILVY
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT December 23, 2019, 1:31PM

Sonoma County supervisors on Monday approved a plan to address the county’s largest homeless encampment, agreeing to spend $11.63 million to begin to chip away at the 200-plus-person camp that officials have for months labeled a public health emergency.

The move allocated millions of dollars to set immediately up at least two sanctioned encampments featuring a combination of indoor and outdoor shelter and services and to buy and lease existing housing and cover support services.

The two sanctioned encampments — locations were not publicly identified or discussed Monday — would cost $2.08 million and are expected to house up to 40 people apiece, according to county documents.

The county would spend up to $5 million to buy six large, multibedroom houses that could serve up to 60 people; put $750,000 into annual leases of six to seven units to serve another 20 people; and use $3.1 million to hire six new staffers and fund contracts for drug treatment beds and medical support.

The board’s action gives comes as the population of the camp on the Joe Rodota Trail continues to swell, with tents and other makeshift shelters pitched along a half-mile segment of the county-owned trail near Stony Point Road.

Continues here

last week, highest court of our land, "refuses to consider" defense of the most vulnerable among us. jude

Supreme Court refuses to consider cities' efforts to prosecute the homeless for sleeping outside

Richard Wolf Chris Woodyard USA TODAY

...
"We’re thrilled that the court has let the 9th Circuit decision stand so that homeless people are not punished for sleeping on the streets when they have no other option," said Maria Foscarinis, executive director of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. "But ultimately, our goal is to end homelessness through housing, which is effective and saves taxpayer dollars, so that no one has to sleep on the streets in the first place."
...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

last week, highest court of our land, "refuses to consider" defense of the most vulnerable among us. jude

---

jude,that's exactly backwards. For once they refused to act to support the agenda of business interests over those with little economic power. Sure, they didn't force cities to provide services directly but that wasn't an option in the case before them. They certainly did prohibit criminalizing homeless and implied strongly that cities must provide housing. Unless you have different sources than I've seen?

When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case the lower court decision remains. Would have to read the lower court's decision to know details. podfish, have you read it? "Sure, they didn't force cities to provide services directly but that wasn't an option in the case before them. They certainly did prohibit criminalizing homeless and implied strongly that cities must provide housing. "

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

jude,that's exactly backwards. ...

---

Here's a clearer article.

My understanding is that:

• Boise tried to criminalize outdoor sleeping;
• the appeals court overturned the ban: "violates the 8th Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them."
• the supreme court let the appeals court ruling stand

---

Washington Examiner:
Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to ruling letting homeless sleep outdoors

by Spencer Neale | December 16, 2019

Officials across nine Western states are powerless to address growing concerns regarding homeless encampments on city sidewalks after the Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge on the practice.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against an outdoor sleeping ban proposed, in part, by the city of Boise, Idaho, last year. On Monday, the justices on the Supreme Court turned down hearing a challenge to the ruling without comment.

Lawyers representing the city argued the "creation of a de facto constitutional right to live on sidewalks and in parks will cripple the ability of more than 1,600 municipalities in the 9th Circuit to maintain the health and safety of their communities."

The case revolves around how to process homeless people when shelters are available but individuals refuse to utilize them, preferring to sleep in public. The ruling found that a city ordinance "violates the 8th Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them."

In Los Angeles alone, an estimated 8,000 to 11,000 homeless people live in a 50-block radius referred to as Skid Row, and the city has seen a 12% increase in its homeless population this year. In 2006, the Supreme Court ruled the California city could not enforce laws against sleeping in public places.

“Just as the state may not criminalize the state of being homeless in public places,” wrote 9th Circuit Court Judge Marsha Berzon, "the state may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless — namely sitting, lying or sleeping on the streets.”

ah, yes, thanks for correction.

anyway, reminds me of Anatole France's
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

jude

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Here's a clearer article.

My understanding is that:...

---

Well, what about the rich who steal the bread from the poor?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:

ah, yes, thanks for correction.

anyway, reminds me of Anatole France's
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

jude

---

It truly saddens me to think of the homeless and their condition. No matter the reason, these people could be helped if our elected government officials were really serious and thought it would benefit themselves. Many good people and organizations are trying, but this situation needs a coordinated and focused resolution involving major agencies. Surely there is intelligence and money to solve this problem.

Bullet Trains and Smart Trains are built, taxes are raised and life goes on as the politicians pat themselves on the back. Yet there are people, citizens, hungry, cold, ill, traumatized and etc. that need help. But the trains will run and we will feel proud.

As happens too often, the situation isn’t taken seriously until the pot boils over in a massive way. Consider the homeless encampments along the Joe Rodota Trail. 200 people caused the Country to offer some Band-Aids. An old Japanese proverb, 'The nail that sticks out shall be hammered down'? Do you think this is normal? An American idiom "The squeaky wheel gets the grease. ..... Could we have fewer hammers and scythes and more buckets of grease?

YES, to actually do something about the rich who steal from the poor -
NOW IS THE TIME FOR THAT:
https://act.berniesanders.com/signup/volunteer

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dorothy Friberg:

Well, what about the rich who steal the bread from the poor?

---

I suggest that a bunch of opinions about what other people want or don't want for reasons they say bear no weight with me. They're just a stab in the dark. What is true is that most people on the Rodota trail don't want to go the Sam Jones shelter because of previous bad experiences. But they're going to be offered a better system than the overcrowded Sam Jones dormitories. Let's wait and see what they actually choose - all these opinions from people who have houses are meaningless.

I'm thinking a 3D dictionary with a campground.

remnant of a fire council

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by finnie:

I suggest that a bunch of opinions about what other people want or don't want for reasons they say bear no weight with me. They're just a stab in the dark. What is true is that most people on the Rodota trail don't want to go the Sam Jones shelter because of previous bad experiences. But they're going to be offered a better system than the overcrowded Sam Jones dormitories. Let's wait and see what they actually choose - all these opinions from people who have houses are meaningless.

---

Has anyone actually heard/listened to anyone who is or has been homeless?
This is one viewpoint.

"I'm good now, but i have a mental disorder, I've been a drug addict and I've been homeless. i understand it can be circumstances that gets you in this situation, but it can also be your fault. I'm talking about the type of homelessness that is their fault. The people that trash their surroundings, poo on the street, shoot up in public. the people that take advantage of the kindness of strangers. we have to differentiate between people that deserve a hand up and those that should be in jail. people that as a society we should be expecting more out of. not all homeless are the same. and not all homeless will do better with housing and a warm meal. when we talk about the homeless, lets not be so quick to judge those of us that want these people i'm talking about put in jail, taken off the street and stopped from doing harmful things to our society. its fine for you caring people to care for the mentally ill and those that are homeless for no other reason then a bad situation. we need more help there. don't make it out that all homeless are the same, they are not. we wont judge you, don't judge us."