Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Re: After the Housing Dept meeting tonight on regulations for shelters and overnight parking programs

From: domainremoved <neighborshelpingneighbors2013>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:28:58 -0700

*RE: Next in a series of meetings.*
*proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Code to establish regulations*
for
1) homeless shelters
2) overnight parking by homeless individuals and families in the parking
lot
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/Calendar.aspx?...

*Letter from City San Jose dated, September 1, 2016*

*Dear Residents and Partners:*

The City of San José will be hosting a series of community meetings to
discuss proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Code to establish
regulations for 1) homeless shelters at places of religious and
non-religious assembly, and 2) overnight parking by homeless individuals
and families in the parking lot of religious and non-religious assembly.
The meetings are scheduled as follows:

DATE /TIME /LOCATION:

Thursday, September 15, 2016
6:30-8:30pm
Vineland Branch Library
Community Room
1450 Blossom Hill Road
San José, CA 95118

Wednesday, September 21, 2016
6:30-8:30pm
Roosevelt Community Center
Classrooms 1 and 2
901 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95116

Thursday, September 22, 2016 10:00am-Noon
San José City Hall
Wing Room 120
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113

Monday, September 26, 2016
6:30-8:30pm
Bascom Community Center
Community Room
1000 South Bascom Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128

Thursday, September 29, 2016
6:30-8:30pm
Mayfair Community Center
Chavez Hall
2039 Kammerer Avenue
San José, CA 95116

All members of the community are invited to attend one or more of these
public outreach meetings, all of which will cover the same topic.

If you have questions, please contact Ray Bramson, Housing Department, at
408-535-8234, or Dipa Chundur, Planning Building and Code Enforcement, at
408-535-7688.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Sincerely,

Jacky Morales-Ferrand
Director, Housing Department
City of San Jose - Housing Department
408-535-3860
www.sjhousing.org
      *••••••• End of Letter•••••*

These are regional problems that need collaboration between all
stakeholders (community, nonprofits, municipalities and county).

It would be helpful if someone could find out if these San Jose meetings
have been video recorded. We couldn't find anything from the city website.

Also, City of MV has been seriously considering different solutions to
their vehicle dwellers issues. At present, their are 300+ vehicle dwellers
enrolled in NHN programs in the City of MV.

In addition, there continues to be approximately 250-300 vehicle dwellers
in Palo Alto.

Then smaller numbers in Redwood City, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Sunnyvale and
Santa Clara. NHN adds more and more VDs to our program roosters for these
cities, so the numbers of unhoused is increasing.

NeighborsHelpingNeighbors2013_at_(domainremoved)
650-283-0270 (No Texting, please)
P.O. BOX 113
Palo Alto, CA 94302
Facebook: https://facebook.com/NeighborsHelpingNeighborsPaloAlto
Watch "Love Is All" | YouTube, It's our NHN theme song...
https://youtu.be/q4T37EaW4eU
"​We may not have all the solutions. NHN will do our best to fill the gaps."
On Sep 27, 2016 1:42 AM, "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1_at_(domainremoved)

> 1000 S. Bascom Rd. San Jose. 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. Monday Sept 26, 2016
>
> Right from my first moment at the meeting I had to speak out against the
> basic assumptions that were the premise of the meeting: That it's the
> overnight parking houseless and the sheltered houseless who need regulating
> to protect the housed and business people in the community.
>
> I raised the issues of the Santa Barbara Safe Parking Program: that the
> "Safe" was to protect the homeless; that people in the program were very
> well behaved parkers because they had to wait five years for a housing
> voucher and didn't want to be thrown out of the parking program while they
> waited; that portapotties were nice but not necessary; that cops were one
> of the groups we need safety FROM (I told the story of a mother and
> daughter sleeping in their car in the parking lot of 24 Hour Fitness in
> Mountain View with ALL the proper paperwork the cops could think of to ask
> them for who were rousted and made to "move on" for no discernibly public
> safety reason. Cops apparently have more recreational needs than just
> shooting unarmed citizens of color. They also roust the disabled and
> homeless. Who you REALLY don't want to be out on the street is a homeless,
> disabled, LBGT, person of color! That's just way too tempting for some of
> our armed and dangerous warriors who seem to have enough time left over
> from protecting and serving for punishing and killing.
>
> Phil Mastrocola (very active San Jose-based homeless advocate) and I both
> argued (me more forcefully, him more calmly) that it's not homeless people
> who need regulation. It's those who have the power over them/us who need
> to be regulated: cops who find their recreation in rousting homeless folk;
> the City of San Jose who evicts people from encampments
> without/before/instead of resettling them/us FIRST; the County and City who
> don't find or feel any obligation to provide sanitary facilities or shelter
> and look for reasons to limit providing those and other services.
>
> They actually spend their time and energy and our money trying to make the
> cities they live in so UNATTRACTIVE that homeless people will go somewhere
> else. That's actually a motivating policy of the land-greedy among us.
> Just go to City Council meetings and listen for a while-- you'll hear it.
> Some of the worst of them have shut down sanitary facilities at Cubberley
> in Palo Alto and then had the nerve to complain and ask of us, "where do
> you do your business?" Is this how you want your officials to act?
>
> There was a secretary at tonight's meeting who was typing our comments
> but, sadly, those jottings left out a lot of audience members' salient
> points about what is fair and right to do about/for those without shelter.
> There was a definite point of view and set of assumptions about the whole
> issue of housing and homeless folk. As stated above-- that point of view
> is that it is the presently-housed-- and their all-important property--
> that need protection from homeless people.
>
> I tried to explain the lessons learned from researching the Santa Barbara
> Safe Parking Program. Phil had done a lot of research about Safe Parking
> in Santa Rosa, Santa Barbara, and a number of other places and shared what
> he'd learned. There is no substitute for actual research. Unfortunately
> the minds of those who think only of excluding the alternately sheltered
> are cluttered by their pre-assumptions, fears, and worries about things
> that haven't happened. They find it hard to do what the parents at Menlo
> Park Presbyterian Church do. They sign up six months in advance to bring
> their kids to the church when homeless people are being sheltered there as
> part of the Hotel de Zink rotating shelter. The kids come in the pyjamas,
> with their card tricks, and hang out with the homeless guests during dinner
> and TV time. Those kids joke around and accept being joked with by
> homeless people. Those kids will never grow up with fears of homeless
> people. Which is as it should be. Do you really think your kids need
> another aspect of life to be afraid of? Do you think that's good for a
> kid's already over-stressed brain
>
> There were maybe a dozen people there altogether in the audience, plus
> four people from the Housing Dept (of the City of San Jose? County of
> Santa Clara?) who ran the meeting. Of the dozen in the audience
> approximately half were formerly or presently homeless folks. A number of
> the audience members had worthwhile contributions (sometimes questions)
> that they raised.
>
> Those of us with exposure to the Hotel de Zink (a friend I'd been in the
> HdZ with a year ago and me and Phil who is familiar with it) told about
> that.
>
> The point of the meeting was to collect input from interested parties.
> There will be another such meeting or two and an "End User Group" for which
> I am grateful and which I endorsed. I called it a "revolutionary
> development" to have end user input on homeless issues in and around Santa
> Clara County. Literally unheard of. When you mention stuff like that
> (homeless input) to those with power in this area-- they sit there
> dumbstruck and the most you get from them is stuff like, "Homeless input
> into homeless affairs! Interesting concept. We'll have to look into
> that." Unbelievable, but, sadly, all too true.
>
> (These folks are working on a time line which will result in an ordinance
> by October I think).
>
> And as time goes by, the geniuses in charge have managed to cut down on
> the number of shelter beds available. When I started my homeless career
> here (seven years ago), there was Clare Mateo Women's Shelter on the Palo
> Alto/Menlo Park border and the armory in Sunnyvale. Both have been closed
> and not replaced. That yields a net LOSS of shelter beds. While this
> county and it's cities are world famous for being very, very wealthy and
> having the a huge number of homeless. And the disparity between the wealth
> and the poverty is greater in Santa Clara County than anywhere else. You
> couldn't write this stuff.
>
> (I wonder if anyone's calculated the cost of being hard hearted has on
> good will, PR, and business/wealth/economic attraction to Silicon Valley?
> Everything has a cost. I wonder what the economic (I'm not even going to
> mention the moral/psychological/spiritual costs to your peace of mind) cost
> is to the Blue Meanies of Silicon Valley who spend their time and money on
> making/keeping bathrooms out of parks, parks closed to camping in, and any
> other clever ways of criminalizing poverty--- that they profit from! Oh,
> the nerve of some people!
>
> I may have been more antagonistic and accusatory than usual tonight, but I
> just get so frustrated to see and hear the assumptions implied in the
> actions of the cities and the county.
>
> I made points tonight (as did Phil) about churches' right to shelter the
> homeless. And the lack of proper focus and concerns on homelessness and
> allied issues.
>
> It was clear to me that the City feels some drive to accommodate those
> without shelter but are being very, very careful about proceeding along the
> road to actually DOING helpful things. They're SO careful, so reluctant---
> worrying about insurance for the churches when (as Phil pointed out) the
> whole Diocese of San Jose has insurance to cover all their churches for
> damages or liability that result from the churches carrying out the
> teachings of those worshipped in those churches. It's just hard to imagine
> or accept. You'd think they were tiptoeing through mine-fields.
>
> Can you imagine? People with education and religious upbringing somehow
> confusing the hierarchy we live in. Not a good sign. There are us ordinary
> people. Yes, our elected and hired officials are more powerful than we.
> But God? You actually think you can take thousands of years of religion--
> the most basic tenet of many of which is to take care of those in need--
> and OVERRULE it just for land greed of the already obscenely rich? Oh,
> what fools these immoral mortals be!
>
> It's amazing to watch the Powers That Be (be they the Palo Alto City
> Council or the San Jose City Council or a group of building managers near
> the Cold Weather Shelter in North Sunnyvale or the Menlo Park City Council)
> squirm and tread ever so lightly in their clumsy attempts to stop churches
> from doing what their constituted to do-- minister to the poor. Or to do
> the jobs THEY--- our elected and contract public employees-- are
> constitutionally supposed to do. Talk about LACK of political will!
>
> Political will is what is needed. And they have a bushel of it.
> Unfortunately it's aimed and full of assumptions-- all in the wrong
> direction.
>
>
> The bozos in charge of the welfare of homeless people are SO lame,
> reluctant, and misfeasant, it's sickening to witness them working so hard
> to avoid doing the right thing and preventing others from doing the right
> thing. And we pay them to do this to us. Aphreakingmazing!
>
> The only thing that's missing is Marie Antoinette quipping, "Let them eat
> cake!"
>
> The rich have become so bloated, their brain arteries are closed. If we
> poor can't save them from their greed, food dragging, and ANTI helpful
> political will--- they will destroy not only all their wealth and toys, but
> our whole society. They will find out someday, in a lot less time than you
> might think-- after they've gotten all our money-- that you can't eat
> money. They may even find out what it's like to be on the receiving end of
> homeless policy. They may listen then.
>
> *Dear Richie Riches*: Get a clue. You can't keep cutting food stamp
> budgets and adding to the welfare for the rich. We're broke! You sucked
> all the resources from us already. There are no more working poor. We are
> now the homeless. There is very little of the former middle class left.
> They've become the working poor you are forcing to move further and further
> away from rich Palo Alto and add to the traffic we all have to endure. You
> have and are squeezing us dry, you greedy, greedy pigs.
>
> If you're rich, check yourself. Ask yourself honestly if you're giving
> enough of your extra wealth to those who can't feed/house their children.
> How long would YOU put up with that?
>
> There was a reporter from The Bay Area News Group at tonight's meeting who
> found my comments especially well thought out. So, at least someone
> learned from the contributions of those who have been homeless and our
> advocates.
>
> As you probably can tell, I can't be very patient and objective about all
> this. Sorry, if that offends anyone. I think it would be good for ALL
> concerned to try to take on, learn, understand, and even ARGUE the points
> of view of those with whom they disagree. Including me.
>
> ​​
>
> Chuck
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Stop the Ban Discussion" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to STB_Discussion+unsubscribe_at_(domainremoved)
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
Received on Tue Sep 27 2016 - 12:34:37 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)