It seems that, whenever the City locates a suitable site for a homeless shelter, campsite, safe parking area or other accommodations, some group springs up to protest that that site is a threat to their community. Thus it was for the lot near the San Diego airport as residents of Liberty Station stepped up to complain that the site was too near their shops, schools, churches and homes although Liberty Station is separated from the proposed site by the Esplanade Canal! I guess their fear was grounded in the realization that the homeless were likely to swim across the canal to invade their cherished community. To the east is the San Diego Airport. To the south are a couple of hotels and then Harbor Drive a major thoroughfare. The Esplanade Canal is on the west side of the site. To the north is the Marine Corp Recruit Depot Boathouse and Marina. Other occupants of this spit of land are the DHS / FEMA California Task Force 8 (CA-TF8), one of 28 Federal Urban Search & Rescue Teams ready to respond to a multitude of natural and man made disasters, the San Diego Police & Fire Training Center and the San Diego State University Coastal & Marine Institute Laboratory. The area is bounded by McCain Road, Kincaid road, Spruance Road and Harbor Drive. Here is a map.
The San Diego Union recently reported on this. Here are some excerpts:
Local leaders want to create what could be the city’s largest shelter, potentially providing hundreds of desperately needed beds. Some residents fear the possible effects, especially near Liberty Station’s schools and shops, and have organized a substantial opposition campaign. The coming months should see both sides organizing public meetings about the future of the site known as H Barracks.
“Barring something drastic,” said Kohta Zaiser, the mayor’s deputy director of community engagement, “we plan to fully pursue this.”
It’s prime real estate, across North Harbor Drive from Spanish Landing, but the lot’s been promised to San Diego’s multibillion-dollar Pure Water recycling system . Pure Water, however, doesn’t need it for five years, leaving the city with around 7 empty acres and time to kill.
Creating another parking lot where people can spend the night in cars is one option. A safe sleeping site that allows camping remains on the table. The front-runner is an enormous fabric structure that could hold rows of bunk beds in one open space. A similar shelter in the nearby Midway district looks a bit like a circus tent.
The H Barracks lot could probably fit two, meaning there would be space for around 700 people.
The Midway shelter holds just 150, Derek Falconer, a 43-year-old who lives in one of Liberty Station’s nonmilitary homes, said in a phone interview. “I struggle with how you could put in an even larger facility and make it safe.”
Earlier this year, Falconer started an online opposition petition that had more than 6,200 signatures as of mid-December. A website launched under the banner of “Save Liberty Station,” similar signs have gone up around Point Loma and the Peninsula Community Planning Board, an advisory group, wrote the mayor to warn that the proposal “poses significant challenges and risks.”
But the main objection centers on the site’s proximity to the classrooms, businesses and homes in one of the city’s most prominent cultural hubs. To walk from H Barracks to Liberty Station, you travel west on North Harbor, turn into a Marriott parking lot, cross a concrete bridge and follow a dirt path past more hotels until you arrive at the first of several grass fields.
It recently took a reporter 12 minutes to reach the first park. The Rock Church is several minutes past that. (Representatives for the church and Marriott did not return requests for comment.)
H Barracks would be low-barrier, meaning participants don’t have to be clean and sober. City officials said the site would be stocked with everything needed to keep everybody safe: bathrooms, showers, provided meals, case managers, vehicles offering regular rides and 24/7 security. Plus, leaders have emphasized that the open beds will make it easier for police to clear nearby encampments. No-camping signs are going up this month around Liberty Station’s parks, according to Zaiser, from the city.
The NIMBYS want to make the case that the H Barracks site is too close to Liberty Station, but the geography of the area belies their claims. It should be made clear by the city that this site is nowhere near Liberty Station. It seems like the perfect place to locate various accommodations for the homeless population. It is actually completely isolated from Liberty Station. It's 1.3 miles via Kincaid Rd and N Harbor Dr from the San Diego Fire/Rescue Training Facility to the Patrick Wade Child Development Center in Liberty Station. It's a 35 minute walk (1.6 miles) from the H Barracks area to the Liberty Public Market, the main shopping area at Liberty Station. If this is not an isolated area perfect for locating facilities for the homeless, I don't know what is.
"The San Diego City Council voted 5-4 Tuesday [June 13, 2023] to adopt a controversial policy to ban homeless encampments on public property after hearing hours of public testimony.
"The ordinance was supported by Councilmember Stephen Whitburn, who proposed it, and Councilmembers Marni von Wilpert, Jennifer Campbell, Raul Campillo and Joe LaCava.
"Mayor Todd Gloria also supported what they referred to as an unsafe camping ordinance, with he and Whitburn saying it would address a public safety issue while also helping to get homeless people off the street and into a shelter and connected to services."
In approximate tandem with this ordinance is the City's plan to provide safe sleeping and camping areas and also to buy 3 motels and convert them to housing for the homeless. Father Joe also plans to build a high rise with additional rooms. The problem is that these additional housing units and camping areas are not ready yet. So this ordinance and the plan to provide additional shelter units will have to be somewhat compromised until the additional units are available. The opposition to the ordinance seemed to be based mainly on the fact that the additional units are not immediately available. The larger question is do the homeless have an unconditional right to live on public sidewalks which trumps the rights of downtown residents and business owners who also would like to use those sidewalks in a clean and safe manner. The answer in my mind is no they do not have an unconditional right to use the sidewalks as living areas. If I went downtown and set up a stand selling something, anything, I would be arrested if I did not have a license. However, homeless advocates would argue that the homeless have an unlimited right to sleep wherever they please on public sidewalks.
Finally, I think the Mayor and the City Council are taking a serious approach to this problem after farting around for decades. It amounts to government admitting that people have a right to housing - public housing or social housing, whatever you want to call it - something that American governments at all levels have never before been willing to concede. Once the units the City has promised come online, they need to expand that program since the proposed units are unlikely to be a once and for all solution. As rents are continuing to increase, the City has to be in the business of providing the SROs that the free market used to provide and now doesn't. Getting people off the streets and into housing or safe camping and parking areas with proper sanitation and other services accomplishes not only more humane conditions for the homeless. It prevents San Diego from becoming a tourist desert. Also residents and businesses will be moving out if the streets cannot be returned to their safe and proper usages. People living and running businesses downtown should have rights too. This argument that the new City ordinance is criminalizing homelessness is entirely bogus. If shelter beds or other accommodations are available, the homeless should be forced to take advantage of them IMHO. On the other hand,to the extent that these resources are not available, they should be cut some slack. That does not mean an unlimited right to park their tents wherever they please.
I noted the story of the parent pushing a stroller who was almost run over by a car because they could not use the blocked public sidewalk. I had a similar experience on Commercial street when my car was almost run over by the San Diego Trolley. The fact that the City will be providing SRO type rooms and other accommodations for the homeless as well as social services does not mean that that will be permanent housing for the contemporary homeless. The social workers will be attempting to reintegrate if possible currently homeless persons and families back into normal society. That means that they will be trying to find them jobs and get them living accommodations that they can pay for in the mainstream of society. Problem is that rents are so expensive that it will be impossible for many people, even if they have a job, to provide housing for themselves especially in San Diego where housing prices and rents are continuing their upward cost progression. That's why the next step for the City should be to do something about affordable housing. This means that the City needs to counteract the free market with respect to housing so that people who are reintegrated into society can at least function within the parameters of that society. The free market tendency for rents to keep on rising needs to be counteracted by the public sector. The free market will continue to make housing unaffordable which will result in more people becoming homeless. What is happening is that hedge funds are buying up housing units, rehabilitating them to some extent and turning them into rental units if they aren't rental units already thus driving up rents. People who in prior years could afford to buy a home now can't in the current environment. This process is turning more and more would be home owners into renters and renters who are devoting more and more of their income to paying rent.
The only way children of long time San Diego residents can buy homes today is if the parents can convert some of the equity in their homes to a down payment on the child's home so that they end up with a mortgage they can afford which is something I was able to do. I bought into the San Diego real estate market exactly 50 years ago for a house that I paid 3% of the market value of that same house today! There are companies that will make a home equity investment in your house which means that they will loan you money that you can use as a down payment on a child's house if that's the way you decide to use that money. There are no monthly payments. When the contract period - which can be as long as 30 years - is up, the house must be sold or the contract settled in some other way and the home equity investment must be repaid in proportion to the equity increase in value over that time period. Since I will probably not be here in 30 years, my heir, who can also inherit the contract, will sell the property and have to split the profits with the home investment company. Meanwhile, the property she bought with the down payment they provided and with a mortgage she can afford is increasing in equity. It's a pretty good solution, but only available to people who bought into the San Diego market when prices were cheap. The Home Equity Investment is like a reverse mortgage, but there is no age restriction and it can be used in conjunction with a rental property.
San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond had tough words about the planned purchase of three extended-stay hotels to house homeless people, contending they were too expensive and didn’t address what he said is the main cause of homelessness.
“We just keep throwing more and more dollars at this problem without really getting to the root cause of mental health or alcohol abuse or drug abuse,” he said April 28 on “Fox & Friends.”
Desmond considered the proposal to spend about $157.8 million — which amounts to more than $383,000 per unit — not just too much, but counterproductive. That cost, along with the price of other housing for homeless people, has come under considerable scrutiny.
“Spending all this $157 million on more rooms, doing the same thing, causing the same problem, is fruitless,” he said.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
For one thing, that housing will include services to help people with the very kind of behavioral issues Desmond was talking about.
The specifics of this situation aside, Desmond, a Republican, is expressing widespread, bipartisan frustration at the lack of progress on reducing homelessness at the state and local levels.
Billions of dollars have been aimed at the problem in California, yet the homeless population keeps growing.
He also touched on concerns that people in all walks of life, including many who are homeless, have mental illness and substance abuse problems and need help.
But his attack on the plan by the San Diego Housing Commission, which was reprised in the New York Post, misses a few important things.
The county, which Desmond helps oversee, has agreed to provide social services for residents of these hotels when they are turned into apartments. That includes getting people assistance for various problems, including mental illness and substance abuse.
The county is a partner with the commission and the city of San Diego on the hotel conversions and was involved in negotiations over their selection from a longer list of properties.
Desmond didn’t mention that on Fox, or perhaps he didn’t know. His spokesperson said the supervisor would be unavailable to comment.
“Services specifically target the people he is talking about,” Ryan Clumpner, vice chair of the housing commission, said in an interview. “The county piece of this is what he’s criticizing.”
The root cause of homelessness, as plenty of research has shown, is the lack of housing or the high cost of housing. During his appearance on Fox, Desmond didn’t talk about the need for more housing or shelter space for people living on the street.
Further, growing efforts by Democrats and Republicans to pursue rules prohibiting public camping are hampered if there is no shelter space available. The law in many cases prohibits authorities from citing or arresting homeless people unless there are beds open.
This is not to say mental illness and substance abuse don’t contribute to homelessness, along with poverty and other economic factors.
“That’s what people really need to get into, is treatment, not just the hotel room where they can continue to use and continue in the bad habit that got them homeless in the first place,” Desmond said.
The county, which Desmond helps oversee, has agreed to provide social services for residents of these hotels when they are turned into apartments. That includes getting people assistance for various problems, including mental illness and substance abuse.
The county is a partner with the commission and the city of San Diego on the hotel conversions and was involved in negotiations over their selection from a longer list of properties.
Desmond didn’t mention that on Fox, or perhaps he didn’t know. His spokesperson said the supervisor would be unavailable to comment.
“Services specifically target the people he is talking about,” Ryan Clumpner, vice chair of the housing commission, said in an interview. “The county piece of this is what he’s criticizing.”
The root cause of homelessness, as plenty of research has shown, is the lack of housing or the high cost of housing. During his appearance on Fox, Desmond didn’t talk about the need for more housing or shelter space for people living on the street.
Further, growing efforts by Democrats and Republicans to pursue rules prohibiting public camping are hampered if there is no shelter space available. The law in many cases prohibits authorities from citing or arresting homeless people unless there are beds open.
This is not to say mental illness and substance abuse don’t contribute to homelessness, along with poverty and other economic factors.
“That’s what people really need to get into, is treatment, not just the hotel room where they can continue to use and continue in the bad habit that got them homeless in the first place,” Desmond said.
That’s an inaccurate description of what this housing is designed to do, which is provide more than just a room.
Regardless, Desmond made a troubling broad statement, suggesting mental illness is the direct result of a “bad habit.” Maybe he was thinking more about substance abuse, which can stem from personal decisions. But often there’s more to it than that.
In talking about the need to get people treatment, Desmond didn’t point out there’s an acute shortage of facilities, programs and qualified people to run them. He also could have mentioned the county is trying to do something about that, for which he and other supervisors can take credit.
The county has increased spending on behavioral health treatment by tens of millions of dollars in recent years. Looking ahead, the supervisors on Tuesday unanimously approved a groundbreaking, long-range program to train new mental health professionals and retain existing ones, according to Paul Sisson of The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Desmond bemoaned the inability of authorities to put troubled individuals into treatment if they don’t want to go.
“We have to force people, or involuntarily get them into the programs they need,” he said on Fox.
He’s not the only one who thinks that way. Last year, the Democratic-controlled Legislature passed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to create CARE Courts aimed at compelling people to get treatment.
Amid considerable opposition, lawmakers also are trying to change the state conservatorship law to make it easier to put people into programs when they are unable to care for themselves or may be a threat to themselves and others. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria has been a leading advocate for those changes.
There appears to be consensus that new approaches toward homelessness are needed, because what has been done isn’t working. Beyond that, there’s no broad agreement about what direction to go in.
There are arguments for permanent housing and less expensive big tent shelters, safe tent campsites, trailers and tiny houses. The housing commission has, among other things, pursued converting extended-stay hotels, where units have kitchenettes and more apartment-like layouts.
Those buildings also tend to meet regulations by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for this type of housing. Importantly, they can be turnkey projects converted quickly. The three San Diego hotels, which are near public transportation and grocery stores, could be occupied by the end of the year, according to the housing commission.
Building from scratch could take years to put together financing, gain approvals and complete construction. And that costs more than converting hotels, according to Clumpner.
“These homes are 30-40 percent cheaper than new & include social services,” he said on Twitter. “They’re coming from housing tourists to housing San Diegans with special needs.”
Gary Warth of the Union-Tribune reported that the $383,000 per-unit cost of the three hotels is greater than the cost of the two hotels purchased in 2020 and similar projects, but less than newly constructed affordable housing projects.
One of the more expensive projects is the 96-unit Amanecer Apartments in Linda Vista, which opened at a cost of $51.1 million, or $538,000 a unit.
San Diego Finally Gets It Right for the Homeless Situation
by John Lawrence
San Diego identifies two areas which can be devoted to safe sleeping places for the homeless. They will provide 500 spots for homeless to have tents. Also rest rooms, meals, security and other services will be provided. At the same time the City will pass an ordinance which prevents people from sleeping on the public streets. I have been advocating for this for some time here, here and here. In an article in the San Diego Union Tribune we find this: San Diego to open homeless camp sites at two parking lots near Balboa Park. In addition to these newly identified areas, the City is also buying motels to provide single room shelters. These along with the existing shelter beds should go a long way to providing accommodations for the approximately 2000 homeless people on the streets of San Diego. It will also be a huge sigh of relief for pedestrians and business owners who would like the streets to be clean and safe for customers and dog walkers. According to the article:
Hundreds of homeless people in San Diego will have a legal place to live outdoors in tents on city-owned parking lots adjacent to Balboa Park later this year, Mayor Todd Gloria announced Monday.
One site will be in Parking Lot O near the Naval Medical Center and just east of Nursery Road, which could accommodate up to 400 tents.
The second site could accommodate 136 tents and is in the parking lot of a city maintenance yard at 20th and B streets. That site was temporarily used as a campground with individual tents in 2017 as the city tried to quickly get homeless people off the street during a hepatitis A outbreak.
The safe sleeping sites, as they are known, will be the first of their kind in the county and have individual tents provided by the city. Homeless people often decline offers to move into congregate shelters, and safe sleeping sites are seen as alternatives that people may be more willing to accept.
Monday’s announcement came at a time when the number of homeless people in downtown San Diego has reached a record high.
The mayor also said the new safe sleeping site is in tandem with an ordinance that would prohibit camping on sidewalks when shelter beds are available, which is expected to go before the City Council early next month.
“When the taxpayers of this city are spending tens of millions of dollars on homelessness services to get people off the street and into care, we should expect those on the street to avail themselves of those opportunities,” he said.
Councilmember Stephen Whitburn proposed the ordinance and also has been pushing for the creation of a safe sleeping site for months. Whitburn’s district includes downtown San Diego, where the number of homeless people living in sidewalk encampments has surged in recent months.
Speaking at Monday’s announcement, Whitburn said the new safe sleeping sites will benefit homeless people, who will be offered a place to camp that will include security, toilets, meals and access to services, while also benefiting downtown residents and businesses.
“I have spoken with a number of people who are tired of living in squalor on the sidewalk and want to be in a better place but do not want to go into an enclosed shelter,” he said. “They have told me they would happily move to a safe sleeping site with bathrooms, with security, with meals and services.”
The homeless crowding the downtown city streets put somewhat of a damper on the extensive tourist and conference business that is a big part of the city's economy. Besides in such a beautiful city, homelessness creates a huge eyesore right in its midst. The safe camping sites represent at least a partial solution to the homeless problem and will alleviate the complaints I receive about the city as an Uber driver. Tourists and conference goers notice the homeless problem and it doesn't sit well with them, let alone the residents of expensive high rise condos who, when they descend to street level have to wade through filth in order to get where they're going.
From the point of view of the homeless they will at least have some services plus sanitation plus meals plus social worker access to help them get back on their feet if they should choose to do so. Let's not underestimate security as well. They had none of this on the public streets. Since a lot of them don't want to go to shelters for various reasons, such as they can't take their pets with them, they should be relieved at this solution. It should not be a problem for them to access other services since they will be centrally located. Many have bikes and there are bus stops near by. Now what the City needs to do is to identify other safe sleeping areas that the City could make available for future use. Hopefully they won't be needed, but it would be good to have them available if they are.
San Diego Throwing Money at Homelessness With Meager Results
by John Lawrence
An article in the San Diego Union titled, "San Diego to pursue buying three hotels to house homeless people" — at a cost of $383,000 per room" appeared on April 25, 2023. Although I think buying old motels to house the homeless is a pretty good idea, when you consider the price tag, there are probably better ideas out there. Katheryn Rhodes and I did some research in 2016 which was reported in the San Diego Free Press. According to Katheryn, the City of San Diego has all sorts of real estate that it has no use for so it usually just sells it on the free market. Although the series of 3 articles was slanted towards affordable housing, these available parcels could as well be utilized as safe campgrounds and safe parking areas. In addition Katheryn did an exhaustive analysis of the pots of money the City has that are just accumulating with no specific purpose in mind. Has the City done an analysis of all the real estate the City owns that has no designated purpose that could be turned into safe parking areas and safe campgrounds? Why not?
It doesn’t have to be this way. The City has squirreled away millions of dollars in off-budget funds which could be used for affordable housing and housing for the homeless. Besides that the City of San Diego owns numerous parcels of land on which affordable housing including housing for the homeless could be built. Since they’re not recognizing the emergency situation that lack of housing represents, they are actually in violation of a state mandate,Senate Bill 2 from 2007, authored by Senator Cedillo which stated the following:
This bill would add emergency shelters to these provisions, as specified, and would add provisions to the housing element that would require a local government to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit. … By increasing the duties of local public officials, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
Safe camping areas would provide portable toilets, portable showers, security, social services and other amenities at a fraction of the cost of the nearly $400,000 per room which is the cost of each motel room the City is investing in. The article went on:
Civil engineer Katheryn Rhodes has identified several funds where the City, the County, the San Diego Housing Commission and Civic San Diego are hoarding cash that could be used for emergency shelters and/or affordable housing or even pay for Emergency Shelter Tents and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Housing Vouchers. There’s $28.7 million in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund (LMIHAF). There’s also $259 million in long-term assets that can be leveraged by using it as collateral and issuing bonds for much more.
One could note that most homeless could provide their own shelter in terms of tents which they are providing for themselves now. They just need a place to put them off the public sidewalks where they could have proper sanitation which they don't have now. The brutal fact that I have witnessed myself is that homeless people urinate and defecate on the public sidewalks. To be graphic, it's sad to see a woman with her pants down stooping over with the poop coming out of her ass in full view of other people and motorists on a public sidewalk in downtown San Diego. It used to be that you had to dodge dog shit on city sidewalks. Now you have to dodge human shit if you even have the courage to walk down some public sidewalks in the City of San Diego. Tents line both sides of Commercial Avenue with barely an inch between them. The homeless rule the streets in that area. I could hardly drive my car down that street without being run over by the San Diego Trolley which honked and honked at me till I was able to pull over without hitting some homeless person.
A proposed ordinance getting a hearing Thursday would prohibit camping on public property, including sidewalks like this one in the Midway District. (Hayne Palmour IV For The U-T)
A proposal to ban homeless encampments on San Diego sidewalks, parks and other places is expected to get a hearing next week. Councilmember Stephen Whitburn’s proposed ordinance is scheduled to be heard Thursday by the Land Use and Housing Committee, which could lead to it advancing to the full City Council for approval.
Whitburn and Mayor Todd Gloria announced plans for the ordinance last month . The proposal comes at a time when downtown encampments in the council member’s district have surged to record highs and residents in the area have expressed frustration at what they see as the city’s lack of response. Change isn’t going to happen overnight, however. Besides having to first go through a committee hearing and then approval by the City Council, Gloria said last month that enforcement would begin after new resources for homeless people are created.
The mayor was referring to a new safe parking lot for people who live in vehicles and Whitburn’s plan to create a “safe sleeping” area, an alternative to shelters that would provide people in encampments a place to legally live outdoors. Federal law prohibits people from being cited for sleeping in public places if there are not other options, such as shelters. The addition of a new safe parking lot and safe sleeping area would give the city more flexibility for enforcement.
The safe parking lot is expected to open this month, but Whitburn has not found a place for the safe sleeping project.
“The safe sleeping initiative is going to take longer, but I’m hoping that by the summer we’ll get our first safe sleeping site up and running,” Whitburn said. “We have not settled on a location definitely yet.”
Homeless shelters, safe parking lots and even storage facilities used by homeless people often are opposed by community members who don’t want any homeless services in their neighborhood, and Whitburn already has run into opposition to his safe sleeping plan. He had discussed using an under-used parking area called Inspiration Point in Balboa Park as a safe sleeping site, but community groups that support the park have come out against the plan as an inappropriate use. Whitburn has not abandoned the site, but isn’t committed to it as the only location for a safe sleeping area. But even after a site is located, there still would be many time-consuming steps before it could open.
Funding will have to be identified, possibly with the help of philanthropy, and the property would have to be prepared to accommodate the project. The city also would have to put a contract out to bid to hire a service provider to run the operation, adding more time to the process. With all those steps in mind, Whitburn is hopeful enforcement of a new ordinance could begin by mid-year.
“My intent is people will begin to see a downtown and a city where more people are living in shelter and safe sleeping sites and other better options, and fewer people living in encampments,” he said. “I’m confident we will get there. I don’t want to put a specific timeline on that because I’m more interested in doing this right, but I do think we will be making progress this summer.”
The word “homeless” does not appear in the proposed ordinance , which amends an existing municipal code, but it does contain new language about camping. The ordinance prohibits camping on any public property, including sidewalks, and violations would be prosecuted as misdemeanors. Camping would be prohibited regardless of the availability of shelters in certain areas, including within two blocks of a school or a shelter, waterways, any transit hub or trolley platform, in Balboa Park, Mission Bay Park, Presidio Park and parks near beaches. Following an agreement that has been in place for several years, the ordinance states there will be no enforcement of the rule against public camping between 9 p.m. and 5:30 a.m.
“If people share my view that we need an ordinance like this, I would encourage residents to make their feelings known and help advocate for this ordinance,” Whitburn said about the upcoming meeting. People opposed to the ordinance have created a petition on Change.org that calls the proposal unconscionable and short-sighted because it offers no real solutions to homelessness. A protest against the ordinance is planned for 12:30 p.m. Monday outside City Hall.
A proposed ordinance getting a hearing Thursday would prohibit camping on public property, including sidewalks like this one in the Midway District. (Hayne Palmour IV For The U-T)
Recent Comments