AnonymousBy Anna Marie Gott
Without any real notice to the public, the City of Santa Barbara decided on Tuesday to approve a grant application to install 40 mobile homes on top of the commuter parking lot at Castillo and Carrillo for the sole use of the top 50 treatment-resistant homeless individuals in the City. These individuals are expected to present with signs of mental illness and/or be severely addicted to drugs or alcohol. The proposed plan did not include a real plan of where the City will park 150 cars that currently park at Castillo and Carrillo during the day or if the permit holders would face added costs. It also did not have a solid solution as to where the residents in the New Beginnings program, who use the lot at night, would go or if they would share the lot with the “new residents.”
The City rejected including any options in their application that included services, rental assistance, or capital projects focused on other homeless populations or those at imminent risk of homelessness, which it could have done if it had chosen to do so. Those populations include families, displaced tenants, domestic abuse victims, unaccompanied youth (including former foster children) and others.
The grant the City is seeking for mobile homes is for $3,130,875 which will span 30 months. Grants will be awarded based on a ranking system that will give the City more points (and a higher rank over other cities) if those on the streets are housed. Preventing someone from falling into homelessness does not increase the City’s ranking as much. So, in order to win the grant and edge out other cities targeting other populations the City decided to solely focus on the homeless individuals living on the streets, which happens to help downtown property and business owners by removing the homeless from State St. The plan may work or not. As an added benefit it might help property owners fill vacancies on State Street.
The anticipated cost for each resident from the treatment-resistant homeless population is $2,500 per month, which includes 24/7 security, a police workstation, and other services. I imagine even a small portion of this total monthly cost could have helped keep many others, including families, from falling into homelessness. It is a shame that the City decided to choose to buy mobile homes for one group, and do nothing for the other when it had an opportunity to help both. I for one do not understand why the Mayor or Councilmembers Sneddon, Gutierrez, Friedman or Hart wouldn’t have demanded a change.
From beginning to end, this process chosen by the City to identify which population to serve was abnormal. First of all, there was no transparency or community involvement while the City decided to focus on mobile homes over other options. Next, there was no discussion to include a variety of homeless populations that exist in Santa Barbara, but rather to solely focus on serving the most visible homeless population. Finally, there was no meaningfully notice to nearby residents once the City determined that it would place mobile homes at Castillo and Carrillo.
Despite the pleas to slow down, reconsider or to make to changes the City refused to compromise or change the application. Nothing the neighborhood residents, Councilmember Randy Rowse or Councilmember Jason Dominguez said moved anyone. Leaving residents to wonder what kind of projects the City will push into their areas without notice or community involvement and if they will be worse than this one.
If you want to voice your opinion on the: process the City followed, lack of transparency, focus on one homeless population over other, City’s decision to approve the application or ask Councilmembers not accept any grant funding due to the lack of community involvement and transparency or any other reason please email: SBCityCouncil@santabarbaraca.
Residents interested in making public comments on the City’s application can attend the meeting where the countywide HEAP grant recommendations will be approved. The CoC Board meeting will be held on November 29th from 1:00pm to 3:00pm at the Lake Cachuma Clubhouse, at Lake Cachuma, located at: 1 Lakeview Drive, Santa Barbara.
If you can’t make the meeting you can send a letter about the City of Santa Barbara’s HEAP grant application to: kalbers@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
Do you have an opinion on something local? Share it with us at ed@edhat.com. The views and opinions expressed in Op-Ed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of edhat.
Past Articles
- November 12, 2018 – Op-Ed: Homeless Trailer Park on Castillo and Carrillo
Why is a meeting of this importance being held at Cachuma????? They hold library board meetings up there also. No one wants to drive the 154 to go to a public meeting when the issues are city-based. Better in a city location, be it SB or SM.
Boy, it’s really pathetic that year after year people decry the need to do something about the homeless and when someone steps up they are shouted down for not doing enough, not doing it right, doing it in the wrong part of town or for wasting good money on the wrong people. It’s no bloody wonder nothing gets done or a used car salesman is elected to sell us all a bill of goods and just make matters worse.
I think it was more like this…people want the homeless to leave town and/or not be seen, not for the city to build them their own little village in the middle of town. ‘Tis going to be interesting to say the least.
Oh and Anna Marie…why don’t you run for city council. You’d have my vote. You’re always looking out for the best interest of the city and residents 🙂
@coastwatch New to town? Your huevon approach has been tried and it failed miserably. Here is a primer for you:
https://www.independent.com/news/2009/mar/07/aclu-sues-city-behalf-homeless/
@santabarbaraobserver : by all means run for office, I am sure that you have all the answers. One tip you may need to do nore editing of your ideas. This post makes you look like a lunatic, just saying.
I am very familiar with the history of this issue. Again, I stated that the City and other Cities should fight the ACLU and the 9th Circuit Court to the end… The ACLU has done more to damage Downtown areas with blight than any other organization- Have you seen the Skid Row area? The L.A. River recreation area? The Orange County Santa Ana Riverbed area…? Enough is Enough. F*&K the ACLU.
The problem isn’t homes.
The problem is capitalism.
The system rewards greed.
Greed causes suffering.
Suffering causes addiction.
Addiction causes homelessness.
Stop greed, start sharing, endless homelessness. -AB
correction: Stop greed, start sharing, end homelessness. – AB
While I agree this is absolutely ridiculous, we are so liberal in this town and this is what everybody wants, that the homeless are taken care of. So this is what we get. If people really don’t like it, they need to pick up their signs and put on the pink hats and go chain themselves to the entryway and not allow it to be built. All they have to do is imagine that this is one of the national movement, and get out there and stop it!!! March and protest, or is our own town not worth it, only metoo and anti trump?
I was talking to my neighbor about this, and he said that the reason Goleta and Carpinteria have no where near the number of transients/homeless/street urchin/offramp beggers is because neither city puts out the “Welcome” mat like Santa Barbara. SB is known from coast-to-coast to be “the” place to live if you want to live the street life. I don’t know so much about Carpinteria, but Goleta (Goleta of all places!), is really cleaning SBs clock when it comes to quality of life. When was the last time you heard of transients attacking hotel employees, restaurant staff, children, and so on in Goleta? My friends in Bakersfield now stay in Goleta with their family, rather than SB. Unfortunately, the downward spiral of SB is well under way…..you can s-m-e-l-l it!!
There are alot of homeless people in Goleta I.V. is part of Goleta things happen there..Carp too there are homeless people in Carp and those Motel 6’s down there have their share of crime too…Both towns are alittle smaller is all both are also taken care of by the Sheriffs Department you get a 647F there you usually go to jail…You might get checked out in GVCH but as far as I know there is no Sober center in either town..
” …transients attacking hotel employees, restaurant staff, children, and so on in Goleta?”
Unlike SB, Goleta doesn’t allow that.
Nothing like a local government that is responsive to its citizens!
Keep voting in and supporting the same do-nothing, inept, incompetent party/union shills to manage the city and we’ll continue to see more of the same problems continue to worsen. While State St. rots, our roads get worse, and our infrastructure weakens. Our parks are becoming cesspools and our schools and libraries are forced to shutter their doors or deal with less and less and less…. Meanwhile the city keeps raising salaries of its workers, increasing every tax possible, doubling and tripling fees and adding more and more debt all while it continues to hire more and more consultants and employees to do the job of the existing workforce! ————————————— The facts are that the tax base is shrinking. SB is headed towards insolvency unless it receives more grants (like this one) and continues to increase the ToT and sales tax income. That means more menial (low wage) jobs and more giveaways to outside corporate interests for short term gains. ———————————— Regardless of her attempts to hide, it is Cathy Murillo and the rest of the elected wet-noodle bureaucratic nincompoops that are to blame. They do not represent the best interests of the citizens or do they plan for the future. They are not acting as a fiduciary or making the tough choices necessary to steer us towards a better future. Nope. They are representing the interests of the public employee unions and the superfluous, parasitic org called the Chamber of Commerce. And how’s that working out? —————————– What most people don’t know is that the smart money is already hedged with one foot out the door. In other words: Those who can afford the costs of the fix are not going to be here when the chickens come home to roost. And they’re coming. Maybe not this year or next, but they’re coming. Numbers do not lie, politicians do. So next time the chance comes along to elect someone who actually knows how to read a P+L and balance sheet, vote with your finances and your future in mind, not your “feelings” or due to a surname…
It’s not who is in charge of the city there are law suits against the city to take action If there was a republican mayor I’m sure it would be the same way though some people might take those tiki torches and put them where the sun don’t shine.
It should be clarified that THE CITY APPROVED NOTHING. What was before the counsel was an application from a group of agencies to submit a proposal for the idea (which AMG has detailed accurately). No approval was necessary to submit the application. Should the application be approved and funds granted, everything would need to be approved through the appropriate channels (planning, community development, council etc). Plenty of time for community input then–and hopefully thoughtful collaboration on how to address a crisis in our community.
In this community we have a leadership crisis not a homeless crisis. There is plenty of money. There are plenty of good ideas and plenty of good people willing to help. The problem is how and where officials choose to spend the money and how they personally address and move the issues forward.
If this proposal goes through, my sympathy to all who reside near Carrillo & Castillo.
Roger, The City Attorney’s Office needs to have the Huevos and direction to tell the ACLU “we’ll see you in Court” They could spend the MILLIONS that is spent by the City EVERY year on taking the case up the legal chain / Courts… Hopefully, by the time it reaches the 9th Circuit Court, those Bozo’s will be replaced!
Seems like the poster is complaining mostly about the rules associated with the grant program. The City can’t choose what to do with the money from the grant. If they thought the downside was too much, then they could have chosen to not pursue the money. This is the kind of commotion that ensues when Cities are trying to solve a national problem with the few resources available to them.
Plenty of people support measures to help homeless people. Any local solution will impact someone nearby. We are past the days of criminalizing homelessness and sleeping, so we need to work together to help people.
Everyone wants to be taken care of. 64% of SB kids have an assigned case manager. It’s business for NPZos and government. Council’s on the payroll too. If you don’t like it, know you cannot fix a machine in motion until it breaks down. It’s running exactly as engineered.
Great idea: REJECTED! Pvt citizens offered Council $100,000 each for an alternative location near County services on County land. Care of the mentally ill is a County responsibility. The City refused financially benefitting from the 10% admin revenue it gets from grants, plus political donations from those affiliated with Cottage, PATH, New Beginnings and others.
Hold it at Cachuma so few or none will come especially neighbors of the planned “Homeless VillGe”. Smart move City to get exactly what you want, where you want it!
You Ms Gott are reason to give thanks for all you do throughout the year to keep us informed when high paid staff don’t public notice, media cant afford enough reporters, and our representatives fail us. Why is this critically important meeting being held in an inaccessible remote location? I heard it’s a likely site for a future authorized Homeless Village Encampment. I also heard MacKenzie Park is under consideration because Reps Sneddon and Friedman both want more tiny villlage homeless sites near them. Let’s hope either of these two sites because downtown is not where homeless belong and the Eastside has been burdened with majority of homeless shelters. Whoever voted for the five narrow minded Council members deserve to be known.
Andrew Baker: home many homeless foster care children or street people do you shelter? One is better than none.
When and where is the protest? Who will care? Leaders except for Dominquez, Rowse and Peter Adam, are all joined at the hip to Monique and Hannah-Beth and KEYT, who are joined to Newsom and Salud. Tell us who are we protesting to? We live in a Communist state.
Buy a scanner and listen to it all the time is my advice to you. You would be surprised what you hear on it learn the codes.
I totally agree. Another neighborhood loaded with human excrement.
The do urinate and delicate in public areas even when given toilets to use.
Enough is enough. It is getting difficult to go into town and shop or eat as the homeless
population grows and regular folks loose a beautiful town. This is getting way too sad.
I think some place out of town should be considered. It is getting too overwhelming to all.
Where are all of the toilets? I know there are a few but not enough We need a toilet map…
@santabarbaraobserver: You absolutely DO NOT sound like an idiot.
How many “homeless” are sleeping over at your house…?
Hey what about this big giant homeless camp at Fairview? You must have selective sight you only see what you want to see..
ha. tell us how we are “communist.”
Best auto-correct ever!!! “… urinate and delicate …” (the word is defecate and I’m pretty sure it’s allowed.)
So much for the American tradition of the anonymous vote.