Every council district needs to find a site for a homeless shelter
Editor’s note: The original text of this post said the memo was sent by Council President Ben Hueso. That was inaccurate, and we’re sorry for the error.
After Monday evening’s punt by the City Council on where to site the 2009/10 winter homeless shelter (none of the sites the Mayor’s office proposed were considered do-able), the city’s chief operating officer, Jay Goldstone, sent a memo (PDF) to the City Council, asking that each council member send him a recommended site for a shelter in their district by Sept. 21.
District 2 Councilmember Kevin Faulconer, who chaired the 2008/09 Permanent Homeless Facility Task Force, has long argued that Downtown shouldn’t be on the hook for the annual shelter. Problem is, that that’s where the majority of the homeless population is located (estimates put it at minimum 500, with some counts as high as 1,000; the winter shelter can fit 220).
In 2007, Council President Ben Hueso successfully lobbied to have the shelter site moved from its longtime location at 16th Street and Newton Avenue, a site he argued negatively impacted his district. In 2008, the Padres allowed the city to use Tailgate Park, but said it was a one-time-only deal. Last year, Dene Oliver, former chair of the regional Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, allowed the city to use a vacant lot he owns at 15th Street and Island Avenue. As I reported in July, the city spent $140,000 preparing the site, but Oliver’s declined to make it available for a second year. The only remaining feasible site, at 13th and F streets, came under strong community opposition last week.
So, will districts with little or no homeless folks be on the hook equally as districts with larger populations? And can the city’s limited shelter budget (roughly $700,000) cover the costs for eight separate sites? Will folks from District 2 travel to, say, District 5 because there’s less competition for a bed? And would this plan meet the legal requirements of Hoffmaster v. City of San Diego, the 1997 court case that holds the city to annually find “adequate sites” that it will make available for emergency shelters?
District 8 isn’t only where the majority of the homeless population are located, it’s where most of their resources are located. It’s also where they appear to be most comfortable, judging by the sidewalk encampments existing in that area; just drive down 16th south of Market for a look at one of the cities within the City they’ve created there.
As for Dene Oliver, it is to laugh. The person chairing the Homeless task force won’t allow the homeless to temporarily stay on a lot he owns, that oh by the way, we the taxpayers improved on our nickel for specifically that purpose. I don’t suppose it occured to anybody downtown to throw in a clause demanding we get our money’s worth over the course of say five years. Oh, nooooooo, nooooo, that would have been too logical.
Where are Father Joe and the rest of the “community” groups who sold their support to Moores in exchange for a cut of the Ballpark development action, why don’t we ask them for some of their well-paid advice on where to put the winter shelter?
In the meantime, Hueso can keep flaunting his stupidity, it may save us from electing another idiot.
This memo says sent from Jay Goldstone to Council President Huesos office. Not sent by Hueso as Kelly Davis and the article state. Also To Fish’s comment most of the homeless live in District 2 not District 8.
I permanent shelter needs to be put in so that this debate that happens every year will finally be taken care of and the homeless folks who truly need and want help will also get taken care of.
I based my comment re the memo on the information in the article, but take the point. As to where more homeless live, I’d have to say that, excluding facilities such as Father Joe’s where technically homeless “live” within doors, the bordering area between District 2 and District 8 share the burden fairly equally. Beyond that, Balboa Park may have more encampments, being a larger park, but our parks, many of the areas that border I-5 on and off-ramps in our community, and the areas in and around Chollas Creek harbor a large number of homeless as well.
There is about ZERO chance that any of them will make a suggestion. This memo will be entirely ignored. Think about it, would ANY OF THEM want to propose a shelter in their community? It would create THOUSANDS of entirely pissed off, ready-to-recall residents. And the Mayor can’t compel them to revisit. Instead, they will bring back the downtown site and say “we got no suggestions” They, in turn, will say that replying by the 21st without MONTHS of community input beyond rediculous and that they think the mayor is pulling cheap political stunts. Frankly I can’t WAIT to hear Donna just go all angry on them. Carl too. Really kelly, think it through.
As long as the county detox center is located in eastern Downtown, downtown will have more than its fair share of homeless people. Police agencies from all over the county bring drunks down to the detox center, but refuse to return them to their own communities when they dry out. So the center simply kicks them out onto the streets of downtown. All agencies who bring drunks to the detox center should be required to take them back to where they were originally picked up as a pre-condition to utilizing the centers services. That would solve half the problem.
Its ridiculous that the city has to keep playing this dumb game. Build a permanent shelter near where most of the useful services are, so that people can access them. If that just so happens to be in EV/Downtown, then so be it. Treat these people like human beings, rather than inconveniences.