The Riddle of Homelessness: What to Do With Your Taxpayers’ Money?
By Clifford Weiler, a Mission Hills resident since 1978 and retired public sector attorney
Homelessness is an increasing matter both numerically and invasively. No one seems to want the homeless setting up in their neighborhoods, so the residents demand the homeless leave, voluntarily or involuntarily, but to where? Our city’s elected representatives are faced with finding and implementing solutions – two separate issues. The “finding” involves selecting the best (or least worse) compassionate option to place these human beings who have experienced chaos most often beyond their control. Our city has been wrestling with this riddle for many years. I understand Sunbreak Ranch was considered (and rejected) by prior city officials, with the most favored solution now emphasizing shelters. That seems to be the current preference of the mayor in today’s strong mayor form of city government which we have as electors created. The mayor is the official who selects the option and presents it to the city council for approval, disapproval, or modification. As this is written, that is the present stage where the controversy is unfolding.
However, in the context of the dispute about putting up to 1000 people in one facility built, operated and maintained with your taxpayer monies, other options are being discussed, with varying degrees of seriousness – seemingly not by the mayor who is fixated on this large shelter, but by the public speakers at city council meetings (and by some councilmembers, though questionably by ours in District 3). And now the city council, through a formal Resolution, has directed the mayor’s administration to come up with other ideas to more urgently address the needs of the homeless and of our communities. Will they find other shelter sites (of smaller size), other means such as direct payments to those at risk or now homeless or other methods to prevent the loss of self-respect of homelessness, will tiny homes or converting of containers be viable options, will more innovative methods be found and considered? Will the proposals address prevention or the existence of homelessness, or both?
Once any option is selected, the second issue arises: how to implement? If physical placement of the homeless is involved, there seems to be overwhelming support…for placing the physical location elsewhere. And regardless of the choice, how will that option be funded? If the ballot measure for the one percent sales tax passes, will the resulting revenue be drained to support the option(s) to be implemented? And if it does not pass, from where will the monies be taken from other city projects?
There are many long-standing and continuing riddles. These are just the current primary ones. The past approaches have not revealed satisfactory answers to the increasing personal devastations encountered by the homeless, or to “clean up” various neighborhoods. The homeless are left with, for example,” I will be evicted – now where do I go?” Yes, there currently are some answers, but we need more and better solutions.
Much more could be written, but the solutions are “to be determined”. As the debates continue, our questions by us taxpayers include at least, who is deciding; who is being included in the consideration of options (have the soon to be or existing homeless been asked what they want or need)? Are public comments being taken seriously? Is the mayor open to even considering anything other than the 1000 bed project or directly or indirectly restricting his staffs’ scope of investigations of options; who will decide the fate of the homeless and the use of our taxpayers’ monies; will those decisions be made in good faith and following open discussions and input; will the solutions involve isolated regions or county-wide coordinated efforts? Or will the strong mayor structure provide and dictate what has apparently already been unilaterally found and implementation decided (without fully considering options or the costs of reality)?
The Kettner and Vine Project has been renamed “Hope at Vine”. As taxpayers, we “hope” that one or more compassionate and better solutions are found and implemented ASAP, and with responsible, good faith input and decision-making. Meanwhile, we should remember, “But for the grace of God go I….”
Category: Lawsuits, Local News
