Homeless Emergency on Joe Rodota Trail

[finnie]

The notion that most of the unsheltered here came from elsewhere is just plain wrong.
According to the January 2019 Homeless Census, 87% of the homeless in Sonoma County lived in Sonoma County prior to be becoming homeless.
As for the statement that "many" of those here "would not mind going a few miles north...." I am compelled to ask how many of the 3,000 such individuals here have personally told you that? And what is referred to as "a few miles" north is actually more than 100 miles from northern Santa Rosa.

[tommy]

Some of these ideas are very nice... but a significant portion of the unsheltered people are dysfunctional. This includes the mentally ill, those with health problems, drug dependent, alcoholics, those old, tired & broke.

Some of those (or those in past years) used to depend on public services, mental hospitals, and public housing, that is no longer available. Unless our government provides for those individuals, they will always be camped in tents under the freeway.

[podfish]

Some of these ideas are very nice... but ...

yeah, when I say "creating neighborhoods" I mean something really broad. The kind of thing that the city setup on the east side of town, with a smaller footprint -- and probably several of them -- would be necessary. In a way, the Rodota trail encampment is a model of what the unsheltered people prefer over current shelters. It seems like a solution that varies too far from that is likely to fail again. Fix the problems: tarps & tents are no good, lack of sanitation is no good, poor security is a problem, lack of access to services is a problem. Each bit independently isn't hard to address except for money and nimby. Those hurdles are overcome for other installations a city requires, so they need to be overcome for this too. As you point out, the alternative of having people under the freeway isn't any better in the eyes of the critics. The critics whose only solution is to move 'm out somewhere else, I don't feel a need to placate.

[finnie]

it's worth taking a close look at why hundreds of people would rather live in terrible circumstances in the cold, wet winter rather than take a bed in an emergency warehouse shelter.
i think it boils down to freedom and privacy with community.
so what homeless action! and savs are proposing - inexpensive transitional villages with private cottages, security, hygiene and services is a no-brainer. except, it would seem, for our so-called housing experts who refuse to consider this very model that's successful all over the country. guess the big developers who hold powerful sway in this county, won't make enough money on these villages. but the fact is, the taxpayers are taking a real hit on what it costs for emergency services for those who are unsheltered. not to speak of about $100 million a year to try to prevent the empty chanate complex from being vandalized. we're paying for that too. outrageous!

[Mayacaman]

finnie wrote:

The notion that most of the unsheltered here came from elsewhere is just plain wrong.
According to the January 2019 Homeless Census, 87% of the homeless in Sonoma County lived in Sonoma County prior to be becoming homeless.

As for the statement that "many" of those here "would not mind going a few miles north...." I am compelled to ask how many of the 3,000 such individuals here have personally told you that? And what is referred to as "a few miles" north is actually more than 100 miles from northern Santa Rosa.

I’m not trying to move anyone on, Kathleen. The governor, Gavin Newsom passed the buck on the homeless situation in San Francisco when he was the mayor there. He said that most of the homeless in S.F. came from Texas. Some of them may have.

I am sure you are right about the 87% having lived here before they became homeless. -But that doesn’t mean that they were born here. Many of them were not. I wasn’t born here. -And it doesn’t mean that those who have become Homeless here in Sonoma County must needs stay here, either. Americans are a mobile people - they have always been so. -Especially here in California, where people move around like popcorn popping.

All I know is that everyone on the Joe Rodota Trail to whom I spoke about the tree-planting & Homestead option said “Where?” & “Let me at it !” That indicates to me that many would be willing to relocate. No one should be forced to go anywhere. It must be completely voluntary.

it's worth taking a close look at why hundreds of people would rather live in terrible circumstances in the cold, wet winter rather than take a bed in an emergency warehouse shelter. i think it boils down to freedom and privacy with community.

so what homeless action! and savs are proposing - inexpensive transitional villages with private cottages, security, hygiene and services is a no-brainer. except, it would seem, for our so-called housing experts who refuse to consider this very model that's successful all over the country. guess the big developers who hold powerful sway in this county, won't make enough money on these villages. but the fact is, the taxpayers are taking a real hit on what it costs for emergency services for those who are unsheltered. not to speak of about $100 million a year to try to prevent the empty chanate complex from being vandalized. we're paying for that too. outrageous!

Yea & Amen !

There are plenty of burned out areas in this County that could stand some reforestation & horticultural restoration. -For instance, the hills that were burned in the Kincaid fire. If land could be secured in the vicinity of those thousands of acres for Homeless settlements, it would be convenient. For the Homeless do not only need pasture where they may dwell safely without being continually moved on & "Swept" away; they could also use meaningful employment.

The beauty of putting the homeless to work planting trees & sowing grasses on burned hillsides is that it is work that can be learned, given competent instructors. If the wages are paid on the basis of piece work, it would allow for the workers to produce according to their own level of productivity. It would also be a wise move that would conserve money and prevent slacking on the part of the workers. They should be paid well for their piece work, after they have learned the trade.

I am just advocating that the Homeless be allowed the opportunity of obtaining a permanent Home - not a band-aid temporary “fix” on the order of Los Guilicos. -Too much like a FEMA Camp for my taste.

FEMA Camp

The Housing & Homeless Crisis is a now a Global phenomenon. It is especially acute in the Western Hemisphere, in North America and the perimeter around Mare Nostrum. Why do you think so many people are coming up from Central America to the Mexican Border? It isn’t just because of Global warming. Several other several other factors are driving that Crisis.

Primary among which are lack of land (homes) & a dearth of jobs. The refugees at the Southern Border are being oppressed by the oligarchies in the countries of their origin – oligarchies that are kept, and have been maintained in power by the U.S. Fruit Company & the U.S. State Department for the last one hundred and twenty years - ever since the Spanish-American War.

If the Federal government were actually benign, and had the genuine interests of the Citizens at heart, they would make the "Public Lands" open to Homesteading – as they were in the Lower forty-eight up until 1976. What is needed - throughout the Western Hemisphere - is Land Reform. Here, in the United States, one Solution should present itself to every reasonable Mind : Occupy the Commons. Hopefully, it can be done lawfully, decently & in order.

What Can Be Done On Our "Public Lands"?

[cyberanvil]

Mark Evans (aka Mayacaman) writes

There are plenty of burned out areas in this County that could stand some reforestation ...

It would seem that a large part of your plan is reforestation. So people will be trained and paid to dig a hole, plop in a sapling and then move on about 10,000 times. Not very efficient at all.

Planes Can Plant 1 Billion Trees A Year With Seed Bombs

And it's not like nothing is being done.

Reforestation

[podfish]

It would seem that a large part of your plan is reforestation. So people will be trained and paid to dig a hole, plop in a sapling and then move on about 10,000 times. Not very efficient at all.

but that should be a part of a system that's more friendly to the type of people who are having difficulty finding housing, or, for that matter, making sufficient income to pay for necessities. Efficiency isn't the point. If you take as a premise that it's cruel to withhold necessities of life from people who don't or can't buy into the current system, then you should welcome a chance for them to do something useful. This deals with the moral aspect of the issue too - often, people are accused of the heinous character flaw of being lazy, or of being willful freeloaders. And it's also clear that people are emotionally healthier if they contribute. So this kind of work is really appropriate to offer on many levels.

Plus, 'cuz a robot will soon be able to replace you, will you have the same philosophy then?

[cyberanvil]

but that should be a part of a system that's more friendly to the type of people who are having difficulty finding housing, or, for that matter, making sufficient income to pay for necessities. Efficiency isn't the point. If you take as a premise that it's cruel to withhold necessities of life from people who don't or can't buy into the current system, then you should welcome a chance for them to do something useful. This deals with the moral aspect of the issue too - often, people are accused of the heinous character flaw of being lazy, or of being willful freeloaders. And it's also clear that people are emotionally healthier if they contribute. So this kind of work is really appropriate to offer on many levels.

Plus, 'cuz a robot will soon be able to replace you, will you have the same philosophy then?

Doesn't much matter what my philosophy is, it will happen. BTW, you're not a Luddite are you?

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

Homeless planting trees and grasses on burned lands............humm I guess that's ok but our local environment has gone through burn and regrowth cycles for millions and millions of years. Left alone will continue to do so far better than we can ever hope to. Lets not be so arrogant that we think we could somehow do a better job.

Nature thrives in the absence of mans meddling.

[podfish]

...Left alone will continue to do so far better than we can ever hope to. ...

the burn and regrowth cycles are largely man-made. Indigenous people all over the world have shaped it for a long time. Nature doesn't really believe in the concept of "better". The ice ages were kind of hard on the existing wildlife, for example - the migration caused by them isn't all that different than what will happen with AGW, 'cuz it's still climate change.

The arrogance consists in thinking we can control the outcome, not in having an effect. Think of beaver ponds and buffalo herds if you want a non-anthropoid example of animals changing the environment. Or, those damn photosynthesizing critters that put all that poisonous oxygen in the air, incidentally creating an environment ripe for uncontrollable fires.

[cyberanvil]

the burn and regrowth cycles are largely man-made.

I believe burn and regrowth cycles have always been a fact of nature. Problem is, mankind (in their infinite wisdom) has disrupted natures natural cycles.

One Pundit has opined.

"Fire suppression, in combination with other human-caused environmental changes, may have resulted in unforeseen consequences for natural ecosystems. Some large wildfires in the United States have been blamed on years of fire suppression and the continuing expansion of people into fire-adapted ecosystems. Land managers are faced with tough questions regarding how to restore a natural fire regime, but allowing wildfires to burn is the least expensive and likely most effective method."

[rossmen]

What's really interesting about this is that our county, and I assume many others, has found ways to boot homeless, play wackamole with the least among us, despite recent court rulings. I assume that the reason the county could move on the Robles encampment next to the county bus yard is because none of the people living there had the resources or support to sue. As usual, the court goes to the king, though it's always worth a try if a really good knight shows up.

[cyberanvil]

What's really interesting about this is that our county, and I assume many others, has found ways to boot homeless, play wackamole with the least among us, despite recent court rulings. I assume that the reason the county could move on the Robles encampment next to the county bus yard is because none of the people living there had the resources or support to sue. As usual, the court goes to the king, though it's always worth a try if a really good knight shows up.

The 9th Circuit Court made a ruling in this matter, but it seems a bit sketchy to me.

From LA Times: Homeless people in California, Western states cannot be prosecuted for sleeping outside if shelter access is lacking, court rules

“The 8th Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter,” Berzon wrote.

The court said its holding was narrow. It does not require a city to allow anyone on public property at any time or mandate that cities provide adequate shelter.

Rather, the court said, “as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter.”

[rossmen]

This seems to be a rapidly evolving area of law. Locally there was an injunction signed by Santa Rosa and the county, with homeless plaintiffs aided by lawyers from homeless action, after the last big camp breakup in roseland. Guess who got housing then?

This time, after throwing up its hands for months, the county set up the Oakmont camp and prioritized housing the most vulnerable, ie people really wanting and needing services, also the most likely plaintiffs to work with homeless advocate lawyers. Then the county got around the injunction by declaring a health emergency and threatened arrest unless campers left. People did get two totes of free storage.

I saw a recent youtube video about another western city where the sheriff is writing just as many tickets for park dwellers, but instead of camping, it's for things like tying rope to trees. The question for our society is housing a right?

...

From LA Times: Homeless people in California, Western states cannot be prosecuted for sleeping outside if shelter access is lacking, court rules

[podfish]

....The question for our society is housing a right?

the "is XXX a right" position is tricky to me. I understand why some people want to go there. It opens up legal channels that aren't otherwise available, since by definition rights are protected by law.
Personally, though, for a variety of reasons I want to live in a society where everyone has housing, food and medical care, and just to be complete, has a chance for a way to pass the time in a rewarding way. "Pursuit of happiness" is so 18th-century. Let's shoot higher. Who wants to be comfortable by either ignoring the plight of their neighbors or even worse by becoming callous to it? I think providing housing for everyone improves the area more than fixing potholes. Not that we seem to be able to do that either.

[finnie]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed by the United Nations in 1948.
Please see Article 25.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Docume...ations/eng.pdf

the "is XXX a right" position is tricky to me....

[cyberanvil]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed by the United Nations in 1948.
Please see Article 25.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Docume...ations/eng.pdf

Yep, the UN sure has been busy.

• The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965).
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979).
• The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984).
• The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
• other international agreements have stemmed from the UDHR:
  
  • Prosecution of indicted war criminals by the International Criminal Court, functioning as of 2002.
  • The “responsibility to protect,” as approved by the General Assembly in 2005, which places a moral obligation on countries to help states wracked by widespread disturbances or civil wars.
  • An August 2006 agreement on a draft convention on the rights of the disabled.
  • Adoption of a Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights by the U.N. in September 2007.
  • Reducing or eliminating the death penalty in much of Europe and elsewhere.
  • Giving more attention to how transnational corporations affect human rights where they operate.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed by the United Nations in 1948.
Please see Article 25.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Docume...ations/eng.pdf

Well, I must ask...have they passed a resolution of a "Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities" ?

I don't mean to be flip... but I have been homeless. Hand to mouth much longer. And I never took- and have never wanted "the state" to provide for me.

Yes... there are many in our society...and our world- who through no fault of their own indeed need help. Many more whose situation is largely if not completely of their own making. It's a slippery slope...

[podfish]

Well, I must ask...have they passed a resolution of a "Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities" ?

I don't mean to be flip... but I have been homeless. Hand to mouth much longer. And I never took- and have never wanted "the state" to provide for me.

I've learned, though I don't feel that way myself, that your sentiments are very common. I have a different take on that feeling. Personally, I want to be as self-reliant as possible, but I define that as having capability. I want to be able to avoid being at the mercy of mechanical failure, to have enough knowledge to be able to undertake as many tasks and activities as possible, and in general to be able completely provide for myself and others when necessary. That's for my own psychological well-being and enjoyment, though; I won't elevate it to a virtue.

However, when I trust someone and they're in a position to do something or provide something, especially if they enjoy doing it, I'm happy to sit back and relax. When I've contributed, or even if I haven't but someone's a willing benefactor, I feel no qualms about accepting things provided by others. I had a friend once who said semi-jokingly "If I can't pay top dollar, I don't want it". It seems to me that an insistence on refusing anything that doesn't feel earned is a similar sentiment. Maybe it's part of the definition of 'earned'. That's a very slippery and personal concept.

Most people seem to feel they've earned things when I wouldn't necessarily agree that they have. Sometimes people resist the idea that they deserve things unless they can also convince themselves they've earned them. It just seems simpler to devalue both concepts. We all benefit from things we haven't earned, we all get things we don't deserve and also suffer from things we don't deserve. Those concepts don't really make for a better world in my mind.

To me it's simply a more humane world when people are provided for, whether they deserve it or not, and it's not really a virtue to refuse to accept what society should be providing. (It's not really a vice, either, when it's just a personality trait -- but when it's generalized as if others should share that trait to be 'virtuous', it's destructive). If we as a society stopped being so focused on balancing reward to merit, life would be better. We could stop thinking of the presumably meritorious winners as having more worth than the presumably-deficient losers.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

Good post Podfish. And I, to some part, agree. I was raised in east coast farming community... where ethics are a bit different..

But where do we end up where people don't do all they can for themselves? When society has to support them- not because they are unable but because they are unwilling?

Having been an employer...as I've said before....I've almost never had a Californian work out well. Outside of immigrants- in the ag, in the cannabis, and in the construction industry I've pretty much only seen people from the midwest, the east, the eastern NW etc actually work. In California...too many seem entitled. They want the high pay but don't want to do the work.

I've averaged somewhere between 70-80 hr work weeks my whole adult life. Double that if you count all the office work, design, planning, paperwork, etc. So yeah... I'm not going to be happy paying for someone who doesn't carry their load. But I'll pay double for the people who truly need it... because I'm blessed to be able to live my life and do what I do.

I've learned, though I don't feel that way myself, that your sentiments are very common. ...

[podfish]

..But where do we end up where people don't do all they can for themselves? When society has to support them- not because they are unable but because they are unwilling?...
...too many seem entitled. They want the high pay but don't want to do the work.

Those are certainly problems that also would need addressing. I'd prefer to address them from a basic foundation, where the ability for anyone to have basic needs fulfilled was no longer an issue, wasn't a club held over anyone's head. But sure, would that create a society of lazy grasshoppers?

We're slipping dangerously close to 4am in the dorm topics, but I could envision a world that rewards initiative, cooperation and constructive efforts without penalizing those who can't or won't. To oversimplify - oatmeal's free, beer takes money. Starting and running a business gives access to a network of goods and services that other similarly energetic and creative people provide. Just want a beer? do some useful small task and then go get one.

Can't get there from here, I bet, but if we were to start over that's how I'd propose doing it. Maybe the robots will agree.

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

So what you are saying you averaged between 4 to 1.5 hours per day of off time to eat, sleep, be with your family and friends etc?

Good post Podfish. ...
I've averaged somewhere between 70-80 hr work weeks my whole adult life. ....

[Tofu Larry]

24x7=168-80=88/7=12.57 off hours/day
Tofu Larry

So what you are saying you averaged between 4 to 1.5 hours per day of off time to eat, sleep, be with your family and friends etc?

[terryjones]

Legalize trailer, tv, tiny home living!

[finnie]

is that rv?
in which case, i agree entirely.

Legalize trailer, tv, tiny home living!

[terryjones]

Yes. Should have edited😵

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

So what you are saying you averaged between 4 to 1.5 hours per day of off time to eat, sleep, be with your family and friends etc?

Hmm... a 70-80hr work week is not so uncommon for many Americans. And yes- I've spent most of my adult life working outdoors- sunrise to sunset, 6-7 days a week.

[DavidMySky]

Hmm... a 70-80hr work week is not so uncommon for many Americans. And yes- I've spent most of my adult life working outdoors- sunrise to sunset, 6-7 days a week.

It's sad that in order to make ends meet people are working that much. You could buy a house and put three kids through college on one union job working only 40 hours/week back in the '50s and '60s, but that all changed with the economic policies of Nixon and Reagan. My father was a retail manager and my mother was a schoolteacher. They put four of us through college in the '70s. They owned the house, and we had a summer house, too. You can't do that anymore. I worked 48-60 hours/week some winters working in a ski shop when I was younger and was pretty much wiped out after that. Personally, I prefer having a life over being married to a job 70+ hours/week.

[tommy]

A major factor in housing becoming unaffordable, is that real estate became an investment tool. People & companies started buying properties, not to live in, but as an investment. They showed better results than the stock market. Remember "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" published in 1997, explaining the financial benefits of buying rental properties. Every time a property is sold, the rents go up. Dilapidated "fixers" are fixed up, gentrified, rents boosted, the property becomes more valuable with the increased rents, then you have more equity, so you can buy another fixer.

The end results? Rents in Sonoma County are 4 times what they were 25 years ago. Incomes have obviously not increased like that. Some of the candidates for President have some good policy ideas to ease the housing burden.

[Jude Iam]

Tommy,

Do you know this from having invested in real estate yourself - and accrued nearly a couple dozen units? Fixed up, gentrified, rented for 'market rates'?

And did you fight against rent control when that was up for a vote? Or not?

If you still have multiple units, as someone in a privileged and powerful position,
are you renting some/any at "affordable" levels - and what might those be?

Thanks for transparency, Jude

A major factor in housing becoming unaffordable, is that real estate became an investment tool.... from .