Here we go again I thought as I saw a packed room on Tuesday. It had been a little over a month since Mace Ranch showed up in opposition to respite center on Second Street. And while the council defended themselves on Tuesday, arguing that they had made changes to the location based on logistical factors rather than safety concerns, the optics of a month ago were not great.
Staff’s prediction that any location would likely generate considerable opposition from near-neighbors has proven accurate.
But on Tuesday a strange thing happened – the forces of reaction and opposition were quite simply overwhelmed. By our count – 54 people spoke on Tuesday night, only 13 emerged in “clear” opposition – by that I mean they said they were opposed to the respite center in the corporation yards as opposed to expressing safety concerns and asking for modifications.
Someone suggested this might be a matter of political correctness or the supporters simply out-organized the opposition. However, while the Vanguard has not had a chance to go through all of the city’s emails that we requested this week – once again the overwhelming sentiment expressed in those communications was support.
The fact that only a baker’s dozen showed up in opposition suggests that the opposition while vocal, did not run that deeply into the community. Moreover, even among the Davis Manor residents, who represented the bulk of the opposition, there were a surprisingly high number that were supportive of the respite center in their neighborhood.
The overwhelming opposition was in the form of fear of safety concerns and concerns about visual blight and nuisances. To that point there has been research presented that studies have found that 
locations with homeless shelters do not have higher generated crime rates.
Pastor John Castlefranco explained that his congregation has been part of the rotating winter shelter program since its inception in 2005, and n their time of doing this, “we’ve never had any problems.”
Police Chief Darren Pytel added that the shelters have generated very few calls for service, stating, “we’ve had a lot of users of the program and we’ve had very few law enforcement problems with the shelters.”
That is likely because the individuals who are most likely to cause problems are not going to voluntarily come to a shelter or a day center – which probably means that some of the problems in the broader community will not be resolved through this but at the same time, it should allay the fears of Davis Manor that problems will concentrate in this location.
To those who argue that this is not attacking the biggest problem or biggest need – I both agree and disagree.
On the one hand, there is a need to get people out of the heat during the summer and out of the rain and cold during the winter. This can provide a place to hang out during the day that is not sitting on a sidewalk, it provides a place to shower and use the facilities.
On the other hand, as Darren Pytel put it, 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.
That’s a problem – in fact, it is a rather shocking problem. Other than the rotating winter shelter, the city is surprisingly bereft of permanent nighttime shelter. That would appear to be the biggest area of emergency need.
Longer term it was interesting to have the city’s respite center discussion fall the day after Rohit Naimpally presented data on his studies.
The existing data suggest that a housing first approach is probably the most cost effective intervention.
Mr. Naimpally noted that housing first was “paradigm shift” that understood:
“Rather than require people to get clean or get sober before being provided direct housing, getting people into housing is the first step. No conditions applied.”
On the other hand, “Transitional housing typically requires people to meet some criteria in order to come in.” It is also time-limited, typically not for more than six months.
He cited a study where they compared people who received transitional housing versus permanent supportive housing and other forms of housing.
“They found that transitional housing was no better than the status quo,” he stated. “It was rather expensive and the preconditions didn’t actually do anything.”
On the other hand, permanent supportive housing has been evaluated multiple times in a rigorous way. He argued that the key thing about permanent supportive housing is that there are no preconditions for entry, long-term assistance, and support services for those that need them.
“All of these cases found that it dramatically improves housing stability,” he said for those who received permanent supportive housing. They found that in two years time, they were less than half as likely to be entering shelters or experiencing housing instability.
There is also an abiding fear that by providing homeless services, a community will draw homeless people into the area.
There are several problems with that. One is that Davis is hardly leading the way on homeless services at this point and in fact seems to be lagging the resources that Sacramento has put into it.
Rohit Naimpally said there wasn’t much evidence to support the idea that people move to a location due to the services.
“Most people in a given place experiencing homelessness are from there,” he said. These aren’t people who moved because of weather or services. “These are typically people who at some point had stable housing and no longer have stable housing.”
Bottom line is that the city took a good first step, but this is really the tip of the iceberg in terms of what they need to do. What was refreshing from my perspective was that the community that came out on Tuesday – in rather large numbers – did not reflect the reactionary opposition that we have seen so prominently featured on social media.
In short, it was a good day for the Davis community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The overwhelming opposition was in the form of fear of safety concerns and concerns about visual blight and nuisances. To that point there has been research presented that studies have found that locations with homeless shelters do not have higher generated crime rates.”
Much of the “fear” was based on already existing conditions in the neighborhood such as the alley between the Corp Yard and Pomona Dr. and the lack of lighting from the Community Garden into Davis Manor. As the Police Chief admitted there are things that can be done to increase public safety in the area and the CC pushed to get those things done. As far as it goes those improvements could make this a lemons into lemonade kind of situation.
While there were some worried about property values and others who thought we should be spending money on potholes instead of the poor I don’t think we should be so dismissive of those who voice concerns about real public safety issues.
It would have been a better day if the Council had approved the original site, rather than appease South Davis and Mace Ranch hysteria about having to bike in the vicinity of the center. The 2nd site in Davis Manor is more expensive and has greater impact on residents and City staff. The original site had room for minimal housing at night. The current site does not and closes at 4:00 pm, forcing people to spill out into the community to search for a place to eat and sleep.
From this statement, one cannot determine if 41 people spoke in “support”. It appears that this number included some who requested “modifications”.
I am wondering how many from the broader/city “faith community” are counted among those who spoke in support. (I see a pastor mentioned in the article, for example.)
Greenwald states “ To those who argue that this is not attacking the biggest problem or biggest need – I both agree and disagree.”
It’s either the biggest or it’s not.
And then he states: “…the city is surprisingly bereft of permanent nighttime shelter. That would appear to be the biggest area of emergency need.”
OK, so you agree. The July city staff report goes into a lot more detail on this biggest need. You should read it.
And that report recommended not pursuing a temporary day-use only respite center because it would divert time and resources away from addressing the most critical need. And that was before estimated costs ballooned five-fold to the.most recent $900K figure.
I would caution against using head counts as the criterion for measuring the weight or validity of opposition arguments. Of course, those voicing concerns are most likely to be those who are in closest proximity, whose numbers will be small compared to the City at large. However, a small minority may nonetheless raise valid points. I don’t believe that was generally the case here (or with those who opposed the 2nd Street location). I’m just saying it’s more important to focus on the substance of the arguments than on the numbers of individuals making them.
When a council comment majority goes against DG/DV views, it’s “the usual suspects” and “the silent majority didn’t come out”. When people show up with majority in favor of DG/DV views, it’s overwhelming public support. The only thing overwhelming here is the hypocrisy.
That’s really an insulting way to characterize people who are concerned about their neighborhood, their homes, their children, and have experienced real crime, filth, garbage, needles and human waste. You should be ashamed of yourself characterizing decent Davis citizens that way.
Alan
I agree with you that neighbors with very real and documented concerns should not be dismissed or belittled. However, I did notice that those neighbors did not seem to consider that the respite center might actually cut down on garbage, needles, human waste by providing appropriate facilities for their disposal. Nor did I hear any of them present a more agreeable solution. I do not believe either side holds the high ground here. What we have is a difference of opinion on the best way to address a singularly difficult issue, and as usual there is the tendency to dig in around our own perceptions rather than attempt to find an objectively better solution.
Concerns are a real thing, not ‘fear of’ concerns. In attempting to shame people, you butchered a sentence.
there has been research presented
Very passive voicey. Why? Because there have been studies which show the opposite. Of course if you use Google, run by one of the most left-wing progressive companies on Earth, the first hits are ‘no crime change’, but if you go deeper, you find the opposite as well. So whatever side you are on, you can support your argument. And who paid for these studies, the Homeless Industrial Complex?
Hey everyone, I have an idea, let’s put it in District 3! ( . . . or the west end of District 5 [Olive]).
As evidenced by all the bodies we pull out of the fields and ditches every year.
Alan
I believe that human suffering, like human concerns, should not be mocked.
I am not mocking suffering, I am mocking the politics. “I’m a mocker, baby I’m a mocker.”