There was pushback from some people in Davis Manor against the location for the proposed respite center. But even within that neighborhood those voices were drown out in an avalanche of support for the respite center – as 54 people spoke but only 13 spoke out in clear opposition to the idea or the location.
The council meanwhile unanimously supported the staff recommendation to move forward wit the planning process including a budget allocation of $350,000 adding some sort of community based advisory committee in the process.
Both of Davis’ County Supervisors were on hand to address the council.
Supervisor Don Saylor told the council that the board took action earlier in the day on homeless services and housing project which included support for a governance structure to help address issues of the homeless throughout the county – which would rely on an executive community.
“We all realize this is a significant challenge facing all of the communities in the county,” Supervisor Saylor said. In addition, for the city of Davis, “the board approved $125,000 for the 
respite day services activity.”
This would go for the one-time expense of setting up a respite center.
They further approved $260,000 in in-kind staff support that would create two positions – a Communicare operated Navigation Manager and a homeless service coordinator to work with the population.
Finally the board approved $375,000 in one-time expense for a property acquisition at 1101 H Street – about half the purchase price for that property, that will go for transitional and supportive housing as well as support for families about to experience homelessness.
“I want to thank this council for your work and your dedication to addressing this issue,” he said.
Supervisor Jim Provenza noted that the county appropriated $1 million yesterday in Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento for the homeless.
“This particular project – the respite center and the two employees – really is based on our experience with the housing first, that if you bring the people to the location and provide them with wrap around services you are much more likely to get people to get people to take the next step to transitional housing and then the next step to permanent supportive housing,” Supervisor Provenza said.
“We found even a person who had been homeless for 20 years was able to make that transition in the West Sacramento pilot project,” he said. “The homeless are here and the courts have said you can’t actually ask homeless to move away from camping in a public spot if they have no place to go.”
Several public commenters noted that in their experience running shelters that there were few if any complaints from the neighbors about the residents or the homeless.
Martha Teeter who is board president of Davis Opportunity Village (DOVE) said during public comment “for those experiencing homelessness the center can meet basic needs of cleanliness, possession storage and case management.”
She said that surveys show that most of the homeless in Davis “have natural connections to Davis.”
While support was overwhelming it was not universal.
Alan Miller said, “The neighbors are concerned because some of them – the homeless as they call them, are bad people. Not very many of them. But a few of them. This yes they are, no they aren’t, is bs. The neighbors worry as they should and then they are shamed as NIMBYS.” He said, they are working class people, “it is difficult and they are being shamed. It’s not right.”
Another resident said that “the location should be reconsidered and moved.” He added his concerns: “public safety, theft and vandalism, visual blight, reduced home values and a safe path to schools for our children.” He added, “there is no question that it will lower home values.”
Another person noted that “I personally have been attacked by a homeless person, it was a terrifying experience.” She noted “we stand to lose between $100 and $150 thousand in equity,” and she then threatened to sue “if we lose our equity because of the respite center.”
One group that spoke out forcefully for the respite center – the faith community led by clergy members.
Eric Dirkson, a Christian Minister said that he has worked with and gotten to know many folks who are experiencing homelessness.
“It’s important to remember that we’re dealing not with a problem, but with people,” he said. “If folks have a safe space to spend their time, crime does simply go down.”
He recommended that people volunteer and work with the homeless, “it will humanize this entire issue for you.”
He said “as a minister, I believe that mercy is the highest good and that Christian love compels me to advocate for the common good of all those in Davis, not just those who happen to be housed.”
Pastor John Castlefranco brought with him 50 postcards in support of the respite center by members of his church. He noted that since 2005, his congregation has joined with others to shelter homeless people during the winter months.
He noted in their time of doing this, “we’ve never had any problems.” Rather, it has provided them with an opportunity to teach our youth about our faith and values.
He added with the cost of housing, “homelessness is increasing statewide and here in Yolo County. The city can and must do more to meet this need.”
Pastor Brandon Austin at the Davis United Methodist Church, “there is a word for what we are hoping to do here… that is extending ourselves for the benefit of others, the word for that is… love.”
Chief Darren Pytel said, “Sometimes you don’t have a great approach – you do the best you can with what you have.”
Chief Pytel noted that this proposal still lacks the nighttime element that they need to house the homeless. “At some point we’re doing to have to get to the nighttime element,” he said.
“What’s difficult now is we’re having to piecemeal solutions for all over town,” he said. He noted that Davis Manor is concerned about the impact on their portion, “but as you know we get emails from all of the other parts of town about the constant and ongoing presence and the unsanitary conditions that the camps currently have. “
“I’ve been trying to make order out of disorder,” he said. He noted that “we’ve had a lot of users of the program and we’ve had very few law enforcement problems with the shelters.”
He thinks that the respite center will allow them to create the same order that the shelters have created but during the day time.
Will Arnold disagreed with the narrative on the Second Street that “we heard from the neighbors there, we agreed with them and we decided not to put it there.”
He said that’s not true.
“That’s not what I said at that meeting,” he said. He noted that he said at the last meeting that “Some of the concerns about safety may be unfounded and that some of the concerns about safety may be addressed (by having the respite center).”
Councilmember Arnold related experiences as a business owner finding human waste at the entrance to his building. He said, “No one wants to see that.” But he believes that by providing a respite center, people will have a place to do things like use a toilet.
He said, “Not only is it the humane thing to do, it is the logical thing to do.”
Gloria Partida said, “ultimately, the only entity that is going to make a difference for that vulnerable population is the city.” The council is trying to find the best location to serve that population.
She said, of the Second Street site, “it wasn’t an ideal site… It would have taken a lot more resources to get something up and going for this site in a timely manner.”
Following Will Arnold, she noted, “The number one complaint that we have from people is human waste.” She said she hopes this site will mitigate that.
Lucas Frerichs said, “I am heartened that there are so many in the community that have stepped forward in support of this. I think it’s the statewide housing crisis and in addition to that, the homelessness crisis has risen this to a level… where there is a need for us to do more.”
Dan Carson said “This has not been a perfect process but we are eight days from Christmas. Wind and rain and cold – more of that is coming. I feel morally bound to support an action that seems well planned out that will help keep folks alive.”
He called this, “our best chance for making things better.”
Mayor Brett Lee noted the notion that this neighborhood is unfairly sharing the burden. He noted that “the county location is a block from (Lucas Frerich’s) home.”
“The same is true for me, I’m two blocks from St. Martin’s,” he said.
“There are many services throughout the city that are being offered,” he said. “There are many facilities and many services being offered and their dispersed throughout the community.”
He added that they are using non-profits as a crutch – knowing that the community has these challenges and “they have done such wonderful and important work,” but “I realize that this challenge is going to need lots of people trying to address it, the city definitely has a role, the government definitely has a role.”
Brett Lee called for a respite center advisory committee to be set up.
He also addressed the issue of pilot project, stating, “I think this location could ultimately be a long term location.”
He added, “we do need an overnight component” and acknowledge that would not be at this location.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yay! Davis shows overwhelming support for Homelessness! More homeless, more people living in ditches, more people out in the rain! I always suspected Davis actually wanted more people sleeping outside in the winter . . . Yay!
Y’know DG, as soon as I said that, I thought, ‘that’s the line DG is going to use’, to focus on “Alan Miller says homeless are bad people.” Well, I have to say, nice job. You certainly are predictable. In writing, with the snippet you chose, you paint me the cold-hearted arse. OK, I’m a cold-hearted arse. Are you now smiling coyly in your downtown office, rubbing your hands like a 007 nemesis villain who just kidnapped Bond’s love interest?
I’ll post my actual point, in context, at lunch if I have time, sans the pressure of the Brett Lee time limit.
“And what a beautiful knit cap, Alan!”
Thank you!
I didn’t actually have time to write about this more completely this lunch, and have still only got through reading and making snarky comments on half the article. Maybe this evening . . . maybe . . . . maybe never.
I’ll just point this out to you: when you gave your talk, I got three text messages asking why you were the way you were (I’m parsing it a bit). I don’t think you help your position by expressing yourself as you do sometimes. Clearly that is your choice. But you definitely made it easy for people to discount what you have to say even if we know you can be thoughtful and very intelligent.
I haven’t followed this issue very closely, but the proposed location seems pretty good to me – it’s close to downtown commercial services, and doesn’t butt up against any private yards.
I live across the street from the county services building on A Street, and haven’t had any problems with the folks there. I think the Davis Manor residents are overestimating the impacts.
PS to David: Did you *try* to picture Dan as the Grinch, or did it just come out that way?
I’m dealing with garbage, loitering, alcohol use and the occasional poop bucket. Is that a problem or a people? You decide.
I find this comment ridiculous. Criminals don’t generally go into structured civic spaces – they avoid them. Crime comes from criminals. I believe there will be little crossover between those using the facility and the criminal element of what we lump together as “the homeless”.
You say: “Criminals don’t generally go into structured civic spaces…”
That presupposes that criminal activity is planned and calculated rather than situational and spur of the moment. Clearly the chief is attempting to prevent the latter, the former he would probably acknowledge will be addressed by this.
Whip out your statistics, I’ll never believe “housing first” is sane. For those not familiar, this term means “you don’t have to stop taking drugs or drinking as part of your agreement to stay here”. I will keep beating the drum on this, largely because I don’t trust any ‘goodie goodie’ re-name of what something really is. [‘Covered California’ comes to mind.]
Ka-Ching, ka-ching! And the Homeless Industrial Complex explodes in Yolo County. That, and the tripling of the budget of the respite center, and we haven’t even got to the new overnight facilities, or the mitigation projects for the respite center, or additional respite centers that were discussed. We may soon have a multi-million dollar H.I.C. machine cranking away here in Davis!
Some of those whom people call ‘our neighbors’ ‘extend themselves’ and leave a ‘present’ for the benefit of others, and the word for that is… poop.
And I should add, we are lucky when they use a poop bucket.
I have been lucky (or unobservant) and not found needles near my house. But clearly from the testimony last night, others have found needles. But there are no ‘bad’ people. Everyone has there humanity, even people who leave us garbage piles, feces and needles.
“Gag me with a spoon” – Moon Unit Zappa
I bet the County Sheriff doesn’t get a lot of complaints about the “constant and ongoing presence” [of homeless] from inside the gates of El Macero.
Hmmmmmm . . .
Let’s see, it’s 3:00am, I’m downtown, I have to poop, and I’m the kind of person that poops in business entrances. I have a choice: (a) wait five hours for the respite center to open, hold it, and walk a mile to poop; or, (b) poop here in the entrance to this business.
Decisions, decisions . . .
Or they can go to the new toilets
We’re not homeless, but we had young kids and you know how many times we almost had accidents because there are no toilets downtown?
I am totally for toilets downtown! But I’ve been hearing about them for years, along with the fact that everyone including the businesses want them downtown — but not near their business. (NTBMFDs?) Then I saw a blue honey pot near a sidewalk a few months back. A start?
Mayor Pro Tem Gloria Partida is quoted in this article as saying of the 2nd Street site, “it wasn’t an ideal site… It would have taken a lot more resources to get something up and going for this site in a timely manner.”
Let’s look at the actual cost estimates. The July staff report had a total cost estimate for a day-use only respite center at $186,807 for one year.
Then the November staff report stated the Corporation Yard option would be significantly more expensive:
And now the cost estimates for the temporary day-use respite center from the staff report from last night are:
* City of Davis: $450,000
* City additional staff time: $66,000
* Yolo County cash contribution: $125,000
* County-hired staff: $260,000
Total for one-year: $901,000
In 6 months, estimated costs have increased almost five-fold! And even with that relatively tiny cost estimate from July, staff warned that pursuing the temporary day-use only option would divert resources and energy from the actual need for permanent shelter beds and increased funding of existing programs.
That’s now $900,000 and a wasted year that is not available for the identified priority in the local homeless services community of permanent shelter beds and expansion of funding of existing programs.
This is a classic example of mission-creep, budget explosion, and bad process.
Confirmed with the city that Rik is adding the county part and he should be subtracting their contribution from the city’s budgeted total. The staff time for example, is “already in budget” so that doesn’t really add to the total costs. It simply means the county is paying those parts rather than the city.
Interesting comment. Seems to be claiming that costs are incurred merely by including them in a budget. (Actually, there are some government agencies who seem to take that view. “Spend it, or (god forbid) – give it back.”
Another interesting comment.
I believe you mean that it shouldn’t be included in the city’s portion – not that it should be subtracted. (Note that Rik did not state that the combined $901,000 was the “city’s total” contribution.)
It is a lot of combined money – and as Rik/staff noted, perhaps not the best use of funds.
The biggest problem being that these folks have to leave at night. (That may be a problem in more ways than one.)
Greenwald stated “Confirmed with the city that Rik is adding the county part and he should be subtracting their contribution from the city’s budgeted total.”
You’re wrong. Table 1 in the 12/17 staff report clearly shows that $450,394 City cost after accounting for the “Yolo County one-time cash contribution” of $125,000.
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20191217/05-Homeless-Respite-Center-Update.pdf
I’m not wrong. I asked the city manager. He told me. If you believe you are correct, then I suggest you talk to him about it.
Greenwald: OK, you are apparently not wrong that the City Manager gave you wrong information that you could have easily confirmed was wrong by actually looking at the staff report rather than being credulous.
Rik (as usual) is correct. In fact, the $450,394 doesn’t even include the city’s “additional staff time” – estimated to be another $68,934.
Greenwald stated “The staff time for example, is “already in budget” so that doesn’t really add to the total costs.”
You’re wrong again. The 12/17 staff report states that: “Assuming a one-year pilot, this contribution equates to approximately $68,934. While difficult to predict the exact implications, staff wants to underscore that this will require the impacted staff, particularly the Management Analyst, to defer other responsibilities in order to devote time to this net new project.”
While these are existing staff positions, the staff will be diverted from existing job responsibilities and these are very real costs of the project.
Take it up with the city manager – information came directly from him
I asked him a question, he gave me an answer. You guys think you know better. If you guys think you’re right, prove it. Go for it. I have 50 other things I’m working on right now.
Greenwald stated “I asked him a question, he gave me an answer. You guys think you know better. If you guys think you’re right, prove it.”
I already proved it. It is clear as day in Table 1.
Why are you not concerned that the City Manager fed you blatantly false information that would take 1 minute of your time to confirm as false?
If you look at the subtotals on the table, you’ll see that the $125K county contribution had already been subtracted, when arriving at $450K (the city’s portion).
The document also shows that $68K should be added to the $450K (to arrive at the city’s total portion of costs).
Good to see the support and resources from the county on this. With the goal of providing infrastructure, this is probably the most efficient site for a center of this sort due to the existing buildings. The nearest neighbors have valid concerns, but it has been emphasized that this is a pilot program and will be reviewed. It’s a council priority, particularly the mayor’s, and they’ve made real efforts to communicate. I think they understand the concerns and issues.
Oh, so you’re the guy who once saw a bureaucracy end a government program. Do tell.
I am getting tired of your discourse on this topic. I would appreciate serious discussion of the issues. If you feel unable to make comments that aren’t sarcastic or snarky, please refrain from commenting at all.
Don Shor stated: “ has been emphasized that this is a pilot program…”
From the article: Brett Lee “also addressed the issue of pilot project, stating, “I think this location could ultimately be a long term location.””
Yes, depending on how the pilot project goes. That’s kind of the definition of a pilot experiment: “a small scale preliminary study conducted in order to evaluate feasibility, duration, cost, adverse events, and improve upon the study design prior to performance of a full-scale research project.”– (Wikipedia)
Don Shor: this not a “small-scale” experiment. It’s a full-blown program for which costs have blown up 5 times the original estimated amount in 6 months and have almost reached $1 million. And it’s not even addressing the most urgent and pressing homelessness needs.
My statement was accurate: it is a pilot project. The cost estimates don’t surprise me. It is not intended to address the need for overnight housing. I expect that will be much more expensive as it will require more staff time and infrastructure. This is intended to deal with an immediate need on a temporary basis. I assume that when the pilot program has been evaluated, the site might be considered for overnight usage.
Don Shor stated “the cost estimates don’t surprise me.”
You are not surprised the cost estimates increased almost 5-fold in 6 months?
Meanwhile, our president is taking (let’s just call it “another approach”) regarding homelessness:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trumps-plan-to-criminalize-homelessness-is-taking-shape/ar-BBY5jxy?ocid=spartandhp
(No – I’m not “advocating” this – just noting it via an article that I came across.) But – if the problem was “dealt with” at a national level in some form, wouldn’t that save some individual cities quite a bit of money?
“IF” is the key word… the fed Govt hasn’t done much constructive for those who find themselves “without a country”, much less a home… funny thing tho’… many of those folk would be housed by family/friends… am not seeing even a glimmer of any federal action (other than rhetoric) on homeless issues, in say, the next 200 years…
And if the current federal admin and Senate have their way, no Calif city would likely see a cent, anyhow…
I’d have to disagree with you regarding the following:
1) This appears to be a serious/significant effort that’s in it’s early stages, by a president that’s quite driven regarding his goals.
2) It would save individual cities (which may be paying for more than their “fair share” of costs) from expending their own funds. (Which is a different point than providing federal funding directly to cities.)
3) It would likely be considerably less-expensive at a nationwide level, vs. attempting to accommodate the resulting problem concentrated in some individual cities.
Note the related effort described in the article, regarding the effort to eliminate “housing first” funds, as well.
Now, if we want to address “humanity” or effectiveness at helping those individuals, that’s a different issue (and is likely premature at this point).
Well, let’s just agree to disagree…