DAVIS, Calif. — The Davis City Council is under increasing pressure to act on the future of the Davis Daytime Respite Center, but as staff analysis makes clear, none of the available options come without cost, community resistance or trade-offs.
The respite center, which provides meals, mail access, daytime rest and case management services for people experiencing homelessness, operates at an annual cost of about $501,616 within the city’s roughly $1.27 million homelessness services budget. In broader terms, Davis spends approximately $1.8 million per year on homelessness-related services.
Now the council must decide whether to relocate the center, restructure it or rethink the city’s overall approach.
A recent staff analysis examined multiple city-owned properties and found startup costs ranging from under $150,000 at smaller sites to nearly $2.75 million if the Civic Center Gym is repurposed due to substantial renovation, accessibility and compliance requirements.
Options include remaining at 530 L St. with rented or purchased modular buildings, relocating to 512 Fifth St., converting the 1101 H St./809 11th St. duplex site or undertaking a major renovation of the Civic Center Gym. Some options would require modest capital investment, while others would entail structural upgrades, HVAC improvements, ADA compliance work and extended timelines.
Staff emphasized that no location is without constraints. Cost is only one consideration; others include neighborhood impact, service functionality, transportation access and long-term viability.
At the same time, the council faces mounting frustration from residents who oppose placing homelessness services near their homes or businesses.
One commenter on the Vanguard said they could not imagine anyone wanting the facility in their neighborhood and described the proposal as a tough sell. The resident questioned where the center could realistically be placed and which neighborhood would be expected to accept it.
The comments reflect a familiar dynamic across California: strong political pressure to “do something” about visible homelessness, coupled with equally strong resistance to siting services in any particular neighborhood.
The debate unfolding in Davis mirrors a high-profile fight in Elk Grove, where the City Council voted 4-1 to negotiate the purchase of a 1.5-acre site at Survey Road and East Stockton Boulevard for the city’s first permanent homeless shelter, projected to cost between $12 million and $14.5 million.
Officials considered two other sites, including one near Dwight Road in the northwest and a more central location on East Stockton Boulevard near Bond Road. The central site reportedly ranked strongest in staff analysis for access to services and transportation, while the selected industrial site ranked last and was described as having the “poorest transportation options” and limited room for expansion.
Neighborhood opposition played a significant role in the decision-making process, particularly regarding the Dwight Road site, where residents raised concerns about proximity to homes, schools, parks and other “sensitive uses.”
The council ultimately advanced the peripheral site in the city’s southeastern industrial area. Supporters argued the area is growing and the site would be near future residential and commercial development, and some suggested transportation could be arranged for shelter residents, given its distance from core services.
Councilmember Rod Brewer cast the lone dissenting vote, ranking the more accessible central site first and citing a moral obligation to ensure meaningful access to services.
The majority, however, selected what critics described as the more politically defensible option. In The Sacramento Bee, Robin Epley framed the move as part of a broader pattern.
“Over and over again, the Elk Grove City Council has embraced NIMBYism and pushed homeless shelters to the absolute outskirts of their city, at the behest of residents who — God forbid — should have to live near anyone poor,” Epley wrote.
The Elk Grove case highlights a recurring tension in California housing and homelessness policy: broad public agreement that something must be done, paired with intense resistance to placing shelters or affordable housing in established neighborhoods.
Industrial edges and outlying areas often become compromise locations, but that approach can isolate services from transit, jobs and community amenities, reinforcing the very segregation policymakers say they are trying to address.
While Davis has not adopted that approach, it faces similar pressures. Moving the respite center to the city’s margins may quiet neighborhood opposition but could isolate services from transit, jobs and daily amenities.
Keeping it closer to residential areas invites backlash.
Beyond the question of location lies a deeper debate about strategy.
Staff has outlined operational alternatives ranging from maintaining the current navigation-focused model to scaling back services to basic needs only, shifting to appointment-based case management or contracting with an outside provider.
Staff recommended clarifying the city’s long-term service goals before committing to major capital expenditures and continuing operations at the current site through June 30, 2026, to avoid service disruptions while policy decisions are finalized.
But relocation alone will not resolve broader concerns.
In a September Vanguard commentary, the potential closure of the Respite Center — following the statewide shutdown of its former operator, Downtown Streets Team — was framed as an opportunity to rethink the city’s homelessness strategy.
The piece noted that while the respite center provides critical short-term relief, it was never designed to solve homelessness and consumes a significant portion of local funding.
I argued that Davis has relied heavily on short-term interventions rather than investing at scale in permanent supportive housing, clinical care, detox and substance-use treatment or fully integrated service networks.
Even with outreach workers and nonprofit partners engaged, gaps remain in mental health treatment, addiction services and permanent housing availability.
The data cited showed hundreds of people engaged in case management and dozens housed through the respite program, but the article contended that incremental gains do not substitute for structural solutions.
Examples such as Paul’s Place — a purpose-built facility combining shelter beds, case management and transitional housing — illustrate what a more comprehensive approach can look like.
While limited in capacity, it reflects a continuum-of-care model that links housing directly to services rather than functioning as a temporary holding space.
At the end of the day, the respite center has functioned as a stabilizing resource, but it has also operated as a stopgap measure in a system constrained by limited housing supply and limited treatment capacity.
The central question now facing the council is not only where the respite center should go, but what role it should play in a long-term homelessness strategy.
Can Davis leverage additional state or federal funding to expand permanent supportive housing? Can it align services more directly with housing placements? Or will it continue to rely on a daytime facility that offers relief without durable exits from homelessness?
Councilmembers are under pressure to act, yet the menu of choices offers no politically easy path.
For now, Davis is confronting a reality shared by many California cities: the demand for visible action outpaces both fiscal capacity and political consensus.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“none of the available options come without cost, community resistance or trade-offs.”
‘If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice’ – Neal Peart, Rush
The City Council has been choosing not to decide for six years now, and there’s already cost and community resistance. I wouldn’t recommend the status quo, unless you want to see even more community resistance, and possibly another cost you don’t want to add to the balance sheet.
Not sure why you believe I offered non-action as an option
City, not DG
Got it
“and possibly another cost you don’t want to add to the balance sheet.”
Alan, what would that be?
There’s an incredibly-easy solution: Close it and move it to Woodland.
Or, just close it outright (thereby allowing the broke city of Davis to save some money).
Either of those solutions will also result in fewer homeless people in Davis.
A “win-win”.
Can’t – or at least not without a hugely complicated arrangement and agreement which belies your claim that it would be “incredibly-easy”
Do tell, regarding either of those solutions.
Probably should start with whether or not the city has any legal obligation to operate such a facility in the first place. If not, the solution becomes even easier.
You would need some sort of joint powers/ money sharing arrangement that at the very least would require consent by Woodland’s city council and maybe also by Yolo County. In addition, unless you had a way to convince people to move to Woodland, it’s not clear that having such a facility would help. It sounds simple, but it’s probably impractical on a number of levels.
Doesn’t sound that complicated, regarding Option #1, and would solve the problem described in the article.
How about Option #2 – close it? (Which would also solve the problem described in the article?)
What legal obligation does the city have, if any, to create, fund, and operate such facilities in the first place?
It’s very complicated on a whole lot of levels.
You’re still not stating how it would be complicated to come up with some kind of agreement.
Also, how is it complicated to simply close it (the other option) – without even involving an “agreement”?
And why are you avoiding the question: What legal obligation does the city have, if any, to create, fund, and operate such facilities?
Perhaps this is where the entire thing went off the rails in the first place – the city voluntarily creating problems for itself. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time it has done so.
Waste someone else’s time.
That’s not a very nice response to honest questions. If you’re going to write articles presenting a “problem”, I’m not sure why you don’t want a discussion regarding solutions.
Perhaps you’re somehow invested in ensuring that there’s a problem.
You don’t respect my time
You didn’t engage at all (asked the same question regarding two options) several times, and yet you chose to engage without actually addressing anything.
How is that an example of “respect” for my time?
At this point, I’m concluding that you’re somehow invested in ensuring that there’s a problem – probably an underlying solution that you’d prefer. As such, you shut down questions and comments which don’t align with your preference.
The questions I asked are quite straightforward and obvious – no hidden agenda.
Again, I’ll ask the basic question first: What legal obligation does the city have, if any, to create, fund, and operate such facilities?
If you think it’s simple, make it happen. You’ll quickly find out it’s not simple and probably completely impractical.
Again, not answering my question.
If the city has no legal obligation to create, fund, and operate such facilities, there is nothing complicated about shutting it down.
Now, if the city wants to shut it down AND make a contribution to another community/entity (such as the county) instead, I’m sure that’s more complex.
But those are two different things, and one is not dependent upon the other. Both would involve an easy “first step” of shutting it down, regardless.
What legal obligation does the city have, if any, to create, fund, and operate such facilities?
If the answer is “none”, it’s not complicated at all to shut it down. Cut funding for it immediately, and get rid of it. Pretty sure that building can be removed pretty easily, or used for some other purpose.
Is it on city land? Does the city own the building?
In effect, I argued for closing it down and then implementing permanent supportive housing. You’re simply suggesting closing it without answering the “and then what” question.
You’re continuing to avoid the question, so I’ll assume that the city has no legal obligation whatsoever to continue funding/operating this facility.
As such, there’s an extremely easy solution.
Now, you’re asking a different question, which is what the impact of that would be. Since that facility hasn’t been in existence very long, I would think that the immediate impact would be a return to the way things were prior to that facility’s existence. (In other words, probably noticeably fewer homeless people congregating in Davis.)
As for the location of permanent housing (an entirely separate issue), I also have a solution for that – one that already exists without creating any problems.
That is correct. Which leads to the question of why the city engaged in this in the first place and I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. I continue to maintain that they chose the wrong solution to the right problem.
“Either of those solutions will also result in fewer homeless people in Davis.”
That point can’t be argued.
“Either of those solutions will also result in fewer homeless people in Davis.”
No they wouldn’t.
Fewer homeless people congregating in Davis.
I suspect that the local do-gooders (some of the local religious institutions) might also be creating an attractant.
It would be interesting to know if places like Granite Bay, Tiburon, and Atherton have a significant homeless problem. (Sacramento has since at least the time that Charlie Chaplin hired and shipped them up to Donner Summit for his film a hundred years ago, to act as “extras”.)
The respite center opened in 2020.
Homeless count 2019: 190 homeless individuals in Davis on January 22, 2019
Homeless count 2024: 162 people in Davis experiencing homelessness on January 24, 2024.
Don’t know how accurate that is, but it doesn’t seem like a large number in the first place.
Did 28 people find homes “somewhere else” during that period? The respite center doesn’t provide housing.
Sounds like all the more reason they can shut it down, if there’s fewer homeless people.
Or is the claim now that the respite center somehow reduces homelessness?
What exactly do the local “do gooders” engage in, in regard to supportive services?
It’s incredibly easy to get rid of homeless people in a given community, if one is determined to do so. You stop allowing illegal camping, and they’ll move on (probably what they do in Atherton and Tiburon). And stop providing supportive services.
When they have no place to congregate (for sleeping), and no services such as respite centers, churches feeding them, etc. – they’re not going to hang around as much.
It really is that simple.
There’s a reason they congregate in Sacramento, as well. Authorities ignore camping along the river, and there’s “do gooder” organizations feeding them during the day.
As with anything else, if you want more of something – pay for it (either by tolerating illegal activities, or actively ENABLE them via food/support.
Does your left hand know what your right hand is doing?
Hmm.
Simple math tells me that (given the number of units), some of those residents weren’t homeless in Davis (and came from somewhere else), when comparing them to Don’s reference.
In other words, exactly what I noted.
Not sure what your point is, regardless.
This is why I view discussing things with you a waste of time.
Your own comments (including the citation above) are undermining whatever point you seem to be trying to make.
Not sure why you want to put forth personal insults, rather than engage on the actual points/topic.
I am not responding that way in regard to my own comments.
OK
You stated that eliminating services “will result in fewer homeless people in Davis.”
I provided evidence that providing services in the past did not increase the homeless population.
Your replies illustrate Brandolini’s Law. It isn’t worth my time or anyone else’s to go through them one by one.
If you have evidence that providing services increased the homeless population in Davis, please provide it.
If you have evidence that reducing services will reduce the homeless population in Davis, please provide it.
Don: Your own citation, combined with David’s shows that the number of homeless people (or formerly-homeless people) drastically INCREASED when Creekside and Paul’s Place opened.
Of course, it depends on how they’re counting them (and how accurate it is). Are those living at Creekside and Paul’s Place counted as “homeless”? Were they previously counted in the numbers you put forth?
And again, were services being provided BEFORE the respite center opened (e.g., by the local do-gooders)?
Does Davis purposefully tolerate people living in shrubbery alongside Mace, the freeway, alongside the railroad tracks (e.g., by the Cannery, etc.)?
There are so many factors (including the fact that cities can now kick out homeless people without having to find a place for them.
Wrong. You are misreading the data.
While I’m waiting for my comment to be posted, I will say (once again) that if there are no services for homeless people, no tolerance for them living in shrubbery, and no housing for them – you won’t find them in a given community. Or at least, they won’t be visible.
See Tiburon, Atherton, etc.
I see that David has now responded (once again – without any coherent explanation).
Seems to me that both of you repeatedly jerk-around, engage in insults, refuse to answer questions asked multiple times – other than to state that “I’m not worth responding to”.
If you don’t have anything to add to the conversation, at least stop responding with insults and lazy, incoherent nonsense.
The people living at Creekside and Paul’s Place – that’s the latest question I asked. Were they previously included in Don’s numbers?
First, people housed at either location are not homeless (anymore) – hence the permanent …
Second, Creekside houses people who are at risk of homelessness not just homeless. So it’s preventative
Thank you, David.
So the local homeless population (per Don) was reduced by 28 people, during the period in which some 122 homeless housing units were provided (some of which can house more than one individual).
The difference (assuming everything is accurate) means that those people came from somewhere other than Davis. Unless they weren’t previously counted as “homeless”.
Either way, you’ve got 122 more units, with a reduction of 28 homeless people (per Don’s citation).
That doesn’t sound like a good “‘rate of return”.
In reality, there’s too many factors to make any determination, including the end of pandemic-era funds. Not sure if California picked up the slack, on that. But I do know that there’s a hotel near “Cindy’s” restaurant that appeared to house homeless people during the pandemic, at least.
The reality is that some in Davis don’t want to discourage homeless people from congregating there.
Interestingly-enough, I recall that Don is one of the loudest voices in regard to concerns related to the respite center. He’s now “changing his tune”?
Do you understand the difference between permanent supportive housing and the respite center?
What do you think, in regard to your question of me? (Read my comments, if you think I don’t know what a “respite center” is.)
Permanent supportive housing (which isn’t resulting in a corresponding decrease in the local homeless population) is the point, here. In fact, it’s increasing the number of people who aren’t ready to function in society.
The underlying issue is not housing – never has been, never will be.
Your average bum living in the bushes didn’t end up there by getting priced out. These are people who can’t function. (And by “bum”, I mean that endearingly in a sense. I don’t actually look down on those people.)
But the issue is what to do about that. I’d suggest that in general, they don’t need to be in Davis neighborhoods (or any pre-existing residential neighborhood, for that matter).
Calling someone a bum is offensive
“Over and over again, the Elk Grove City Council has embraced NIMBYism and pushed homeless shelters to the absolute outskirts of their city, at the behest of residents who — God forbid — should have to live near anyone poor,” Epley wrote.”
So has Woodland – and it seems to be working pretty well. Except for the fact that one of the residents whom I personally know has concerns regarding the other residents engaging in drug dealing. Just the type of activity that “anyone” would want in their neighborhood – right? What a bunch of NIMBYs – right?
So apparently, it’s not just housing that the homeless advocate lunatics would be satisfied with. It now (also) has to have a location that they’d prefer. Got it. Apparently, “free” and adequate housing isn’t enough for these advocates. (Usually from the type of people who aren’t contributing much money to the system, themselves.)
Honestly, it’s no wonder things are so screwed up (not just in regard to this particular issue).
The respite center needs to move. 5th and L is not an appropriate location for it and the facilities there are not adequate. It is not worth investing in upgrades there as the site is under discussion for redevelopment. The 2nd Street location would have been better but appears to be off the table now.
Any drop-in center needs to be staffed 24/7.
Police presence is necessary.
Plan for daily police and medical calls in the vicinity.
People need places to store things. Then need bathrooms available around the clock. Nearby businesses will not provide them.
Residential settings are problematic. Near-neighbor issues need to be the first priority in assessing new locations or we will just be back here again in a couple of years. This is why commercial sites are generally preferred.
I do understand that the council members do not want to see a reduction in services. All have expressed support for relocating the center and all are aware of the harm it has done to the surrounding neighborhood. There is clear awareness of the communication issues in the past.
It is extremely important to be up-front about the problems with relocation, to listen to potential new neighbors, and to evaluate and act on complaints regularly (not just in response to public pressure).
I don’t think there is any evidence that providing services in a community increases the number of homeless in that community. It does affect the distribution as to where they spend their time and sleep. People will sleep and hang out near the respite center, including some who are not even allowed in due to substance abuse and mental health issues. The biggest improvement we’ve seen is the direct outreach to people lingering nearby as an officer was assigned to that beat and the center employees apparently are also doing outreach. But that doesn’t mean the problems are solved, just that there’s been improvement.
I agree with David that permanent supportive housing is the long-term answer, but there is not funding for it that I can see.
David,
You raise thoughtful and important points. However, based on my prior professional experience working with individuals experiencing homelessness, I believe the issue is more complex than it may initially appear.
Your perspective seems to assume that individuals are consistently willing and able to engage in treatment services. In practice, that is often not the case. For many people, substance use and homelessness are deeply intertwined. Substances are sometimes initially used as survival mechanisms—for example, to stay awake at night for safety or to cope with trauma and extreme stress. Over time, this coping mechanism can evolve into severe dependency, making voluntary engagement in treatment significantly more complicated.
There are also substantial structural and financial constraints that limit what municipalities can realistically provide. Expanding behavioral health services requires licensed clinicians, whose salaries commonly exceed $130,000 annually. Scaling services meaningfully would likely cost the City of Davis several million dollars at minimum. While expanded programming is desirable, it must be weighed against the City’s overall budget limitations and competing public safety, infrastructure, and community service obligations. In practical terms, the City appears to be operating within the constraints of the resources it currently has available.
Service providers also operate within severe resource shortages. Housing vouchers are extremely limited, highly regulated, and time-sensitive. Even when a voucher is obtained, recipients must locate a landlord willing to accept it within a constrained timeframe—an increasingly difficult task given the shortage of affordable housing units. As a result, vouchers often function as scarce and competitive resources rather than guaranteed pathways to stable housing.
Income instability further compounds the issue. Many individuals experiencing homelessness live with disabling conditions but have no reliable source of income. I have worked with individuals who spent years navigating the Social Security disability process without approval. During that time, they remain without stable income, which significantly impedes their ability to secure and maintain housing.
It is also important to recognize the role of the Davis Respite Center. While it can reasonably be described as a short-term intervention rather than a permanent solution, it provides essential stabilizing services: showers, access to clothing, warm meals, and case management. It also serves as a critical connection point to behavioral health programs and outside providers when individuals are ready and available to engage. In my previous role, I regularly assisted individuals with obtaining birth certificates or state identification cards—tasks that may seem simple but can be overwhelming without transportation, documentation, financial resources, or organizational support. Without identification, individuals cannot access employment, housing programs, or public benefits. These foundational services matter.
Without programs like the Respite Center, the homeless population in Davis would likely experience even greater instability and reduced access to care.
Ultimately, addressing homelessness at scale would require investments far beyond what a single city can reasonably absorb. The homelessness crisis is not solely a municipal issue; it is a broader structural challenge requiring coordinated action and sustained funding at the city, county, state, and federal levels. Meaningful long-term solutions will require alignment across all levels of government, including expanded affordable housing development, behavioral health infrastructure, disability benefit reform, and sustainable funding mechanisms.
Compassion and accountability are both important—but so is a realistic understanding of cost, capacity, and jurisdictional responsibility.
DS say things in quotes:
“The respite center needs to move.”
YES
“5th and L is not an appropriate location for it and the facilities there are not adequate.”
Yes.
“It is not worth investing in upgrades there as the site is under discussion for redevelopment.”
Someday
“The 2nd Street location would have been better but appears to be off the table now.”
The people who’s houses are worth $100k more who like on that end of town came out to complain. Despite pretending to adhere to ‘social justice’ paradigms, the city wouldn’t dare site the Respite Center in a richer neighborhood, so as most cities do, Davis is no exception, they stick it in the center of town adjacent to the neighborhood with some of the cheapest houses in town, sans trailers.
“Any drop-in center needs to be staffed 24/7.”
Or have a place for them to go after hours in another district, as we promised to us in ***2019*** was going to happen. Yeah right!!! Charlie Brown, meet Lucy, meet football.
“Police presence is necessary.”
Yeah, right. I believe they claim only three cops on beat at any one time (I’ve never believed that), but even if it’s double that, one of them is paid to sit on the Respite Center? Not a chance.
“Plan for daily police and medical calls in the vicinity.”
Not in the vicinity of 5th and L, hopefully. And plan, what plan? If there are calls, they go.
“People need places to store things.”
Much agree. There has to be a limit, and the ability for those in charge of storage places to judge items to be junk, because there is far too much of it. There should be clear guidelines so they can be enforced and there isn’t selective sorting, and the area this is done should be filmed and recorded so there’s a record.
“Then need bathrooms available around the clock.”
My friend on 5th has provided his yard, INVOLUNTARILY, twice. Two different women on two different dates dropped their pants and a load while he was in the yard. He called the City and they wouldn’t clean it up, so he had to do it, with a shovel.
“Nearby businesses will not provide them.”
And if they did . . . you’re all tracking with me, right.? What would happen if, say a nursery provided a portaloo out front?
“Residential settings are problematic.”
You can say that again.
“Residential settings are problematic.”
That was meant to be rhetorical.
“Near-neighbor issues need to be the first priority in assessing new locations or we will just be back here again in a couple of years.”
True. But another way the City can deal with the Respite Center is to continue to stick it to the people in Davis Manor, Huntwood, and Old East Davis. Screw those neighborhoods in perpetuity, problem solved!
“This is why commercial sites are generally preferred.”
DS, don’t mean this as a ‘gotcha’ but as an honest question. I know that you have also had issues with the effects of having the Respite Center nearby. You are commercial. I know in many cities there are problems for businesses with security, garbage, harassment of employees, theft, feces when homeless facilities are sited nearby – and, as you know, an occasional dead body. Now in Woodland it seems to work on the east side in ‘industrial’ where there are solid fences around many of the facilities. But as ‘commercial’ you don’t really want the effects either — or if you weren’t in residential that you’d want it near your business? So really asking effect on your business and what sort of ‘commercial’ area it should be in.
“I do understand that the council members do not want to see a reduction in services.”
Certainly they want to appear the are ‘doing something’ – but that shouldn’t include ‘at ANY cost per contact’ and ‘without documentation of actual results’ or ‘not considering how the money could be more successfully used’ and ‘not giving an F about those effected’.
“All have expressed support for relocating the center and all are aware of the harm it has done to the surrounding neighborhood.”
Not true. The woman on the council all expressed (varying ideas and degrees) of support for relocating the center. The men did not. Like the song, the women are smarter.
“There is clear awareness of the communication issues in the past.”
Debatable – not sure that matters so some.
“It is extremely important to be up-front about the problems with relocation, to listen to potential new neighbors, and to evaluate and act on complaints regularly (not just in response to public pressure).”
After hearing our experience in the three neighborhoods and the City unable or unwilling or too dense to live up to ANY of the promises it made in 2019, there isn’t a place in Davis that will accept the Respite Center. It’ either shut it down, meld it into Paul’s Place area, or continue to shove the effects down our throats until we REBEL.
“I don’t think there is any evidence that providing services in a community increases the number of homeless in that community.”
Oh, please. When I was riding the rails 40 years ago the hobos went to the towns and the places in those towns that provided serves. What we say today is a completely different culture of street people and much heavier vibe, but they aren’t stupid and they know to go where people are tolerant and where services are provided. What towns and what parts of towns.
“It does affect the distribution as to where they spend their time and sleep.”
Agree with that. And since they can’t stay past closing time, they have nowhere to go, except our three neighborhoods. Just a couple of days ago, I saw a couple, with their pit bull mix and more belongings than they could carry in one trip, making their way down the railroad alley, just after Respite Center closing time. They passed my house, then turned around and set up camp in the alley under a tiny tree. It was just before the first night of downpours. I went out and talked to them, and said it was about to rain and they’d be rained out here. They’d been to the Respite Center, they said Paul’s Place was full, and there’s no longer a winter shelter program in Davis to recommend.
It starts pouring. Around midnight hear something in the alley and I look out to see them going west again with their dog and a shopping cart in the pouring rain. In the morning I found they’d abandoned half their stuff in the alley near the corner of my back fence. I thought they’d come back and get it, but it’s been days now and they never did. So they got drenched, hopefully found an overhang downtown, and once again I have a bunch of garbage I have to call in or clean up myself. My point is, the city promised us in *2019* there would be a place for people from the Respite Center to go when the respite center closed, and it would not be in District 3. This never happened, and when it closes, they have to find a place to camp for the night, almost always in our neighborhood, and for some reason modern homeless people don’t pick up after themselves and leave their trash wherever – and wherever is too often very close to my house. Yes, you’re welcome the rest of Davis. Those of us in the places they actually go have to deal with these effects, and you don’t. Thanks Districts 1,2,4, and 5. Yes, we are so happy to be the victims of your policies, and then you shame us for not accepting that role quietly. Well go #$%^ yourselves.
“People will sleep and hang out near the respite center, including some who are not even allowed in due to substance abuse and mental health issues.”
Yup.
“The biggest improvement we’ve seen is the direct outreach to people lingering nearby as an officer was assigned to that beat and the center employees apparently are also doing outreach. But that doesn’t mean the problems are solved, just that there’s been improvement.”
I don’t expect the problem to be solved. The issue is the Respite Center has caused a deeper concentration near our neighborhoods, and we are taking it up the @#$ for the rest of Davis. Time to put the Respite Center at Stonegate Lake, North Davis Farms and Lake Alhambra so Davis Manor, Huntwood and Old Eaat can take revenge upon the Davis rich and elite.
“I agree with David that permanent supportive housing is the long-term answer, but there is not funding for it that I can see.”
And when will there be, funding? And even if there was, when would it ever not be a bottomless pit ?
See you all in Chambers tomorrow night!!!
Why is moving the respite center to h street in the Davis-owned duplex next to Paul’s place a “nonstarter?” (Per bapu and Josh)
*How* are the cultures between respite and Paul’s place so different?