CityofGoleta
Source: City of Goleta
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara will receive almost $19 million to acquire and rehabilitate the 60-unit Super 8 Motel in Old Town Goleta into permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness and homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness. The project located at 6021 Hollister Avenue will provide on-site wrap-around supportive services and ample space for indoor and outdoor community services.
The funding, announced on April 13, 2022, by Governor Gavin Newsom, is a part of $70 million in State awards for six new Homekey projects throughout California. When fully operational, the projects will provide 232 housing units for people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.
City of Goleta Mayor Paula Perotte said, “We are thrilled and grateful to hear the great news! This is the culmination of what has been a massive effort on the part of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara to secure this much needed State funding with assistance from the County and the City of Goleta. We are pleased to serve as a financial contributor and supporter of this exemplary project. This proposed development will play a big part locally to help address the human and societal problem of people experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness.”
John Polanskey, the Director of Housing Development for the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara said, “The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara values its partnership with the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara in our joint efforts to increase the availability of permanent supportive housing for our most vulnerable residents. The proposed conversion of the Super 8 in Goleta to serve this purpose is our latest effort. The $18,958,701 from the State of California, in addition to the funding committed by the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara, will help make the Super 8 conversion a reality.”
The Super 8 housing development project is proposed to include 59 permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness. One unit will house an onsite property manager, plus five existing units will be converted to community space in which a robust offering of services will be provided.
This state funding includes rental subsidy and operating costs. Generous additional funding has been reserved for this development by the County of Santa Barbara and City of Goleta. Under recent State law (AB 140 and AB 2162), supportive housing projects funded through the Homekey program are automatically deemed consistent and in conformity with local General Plan and zoning requirements and allowed by right as a permitted use.
An informational meeting to be held at the Super 8 location is in the works and expected to take place next month. We will send out details to the community as soon as they are finalized.
CHIP – that’s not “whataboutism,” as I’m not changing the subject or deflecting because I have a losing “argument,” I am simply just curious whether you think this will help those homeless who aren’t addicts. You talk about “these people” and that giving them a roof won’t help, so again, would it not help those homeless who aren’t addicts? There is a very large, if not equal population of non-addict homeless people, yet many choose to focus their ire on the addicts.
Surprised Goleta mayor Perotte is welcoming this development with such absolutely open arms. Really? Like 0932 said, voters remember what your elected leaders are doing next time when you get to vote. What a shame.
Sac, are you opposed to doing something to tackle the drug addiction crisis? Every time I suggest that we should focus on helping drug addicts, you deflect and say “what about” the people who are homeless but don’t use drugs.
CHIP – “Sac, are you opposed to doing something to tackle the drug addiction crisis?”
SBTOWNIE – Interesting, thanks for sharing. So, looks like 75% of those surveyed had substance abuse condition, so significantly less than 95%.
Even if it were 99% though, as I asked COAST, should we refuse to provide shelter if they don’t accept rehab? Just leave those addicts out on the streets to commit more crimes and start more fires?
This is the important question. If we don’t provide shelter, then what do we do?
COAST – how am I living in my own reality when you’re the one who posted a made up statistic?
12:32
And if you had a penny for every time you committed whataboutism, you’d be even richer!
HAHALOL – I’m betting there’s not a ton of demand for parking at a homeless shelter?
I wonder what “on-site wrap-around supportive services” means?
Hey CHIP – looks like this will be more than just a “roof over their heads.” Surprised you didn’t catch that when you read the article before complaining about it.
03:16 – And “if” my Aunt had two of those whatchamacallits she’d be my Uncle. Add another penny for “if’s” and someone could be even richer:)
so the dealers can drop the drugs and pimps can pick up their girls- no kidding
Sac – Yeah, I’m not sure what constitutes a “survey” (I’ll look into it later sometime) but if it’s self reported I think we could venture to say it might be a little higher due to people not being honest with themselves.
But regardless – I am a fan of the Mike Shellenberger model. “Shelter first, HOUSING earned.” This is much more like housing than shelter. In Shellenberger’s model, shelter might be what we typically think of as shelters – not individual hotel rooms with no rooms in prime real estate. Shellenberger says the shelters and those who use them should have no expectation of them being located in prime real estate (EXPENSIVE) areas – LA, SB, SF, etc. We can build brand new humane facilities in places like the central valley or the deserts where land is cheap. Or reappropriate aging facilities exactly like these hotels but IN OTHER, WAY CHEAPER parts of the state (or country for that matter). I think it’s crazy to pay to house any majority of our homeless people here, especially as many of them are not locals. Shellenberger advocates for housing – meaning small apartments or private quarters and reintegration to certain locations (for instance, if someone were from SB, getting them back here) – AFTER people have participated in and made progress in drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment plans.
Let me see $19,000,000 divided by 60 people… such a deal. Only $316,667 per person upfront and who knows how much over time. Financially it doesn’t make sense. There have to be less expensive ways to develop cheap shelter. Wait there are…”The systemwide average revenue per temporary bed in emergency shelters and transitional housing is $27,589 and $32,511 per permanent supportive housing unit, which can sometimes house more than one single adult.”
https://nlihc.org/resource/annual-cost-meeting-unmet-demand-sheltering-people-experiencing-homelessness-estimated-45
That includes providing shelter and additional services like behavioral and mental health services, case management, or legal services.
There are homeless who compete very well in the race to the bottom and are quite happy with themselves within the context of getting by while staying very high. Their idea of duty care is for YOU to pay for and provide free drugs, free needles, free food, free alcohol, free shelter, theft and crimes free of consequences and absolute freedom to pursue a self destructive happiness that catches others in their wake. They of course only have the duty of care about getting high, and/stealing from any and all.
Why are the SBPD constantly at the Rose Garden Inn? We were told that the problem could be solved by housing and services. Clearly that is not the case.
THere is land in Cuyama why don’t we buy some and build a facility there… 100 acres. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cuyama/166-Russell-Ranch-Hwy-93254/home/109168802
Here are some properties in inland SB county where land in cheap. We could build the county homeless shelter there and convert these disused inns into fresh, clean efficiency studios for rent at rates our working class can afford!
960 acres for 1.25 million https://www.redfin.com/CA/Maricopa/Foothill-Rd-93252/home/147638185
198 acres for 999k https://www.redfin.com/CA/New-Cuyama/0-Foothill-RD-93254/home/172754666
282 acres with lots of privacy and water (due to being a pot farm) it’s only 1.4 million and hey, the seller will finance it! https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cuyama/890-Balinger-Canyon-RD-93254/home/178355317
Hit send to quickly….. how would we do that exactly? Ask every applicant whether or not they use drugs? You’re not going to get as much honesty as you think you might. The only way to keep it “clean” is to prohibit (with zero tolerance) intoxication and/or use on the property, like they do at the Rescue Mission.
Like I’ve said before, if your life blew up for circumstances beyond your control and you and your family got the short end of the stick for no fault of your own, then heck yes, all the help we can muster to get you back on your feet. You were a once a contributor and should be made so again.
But that scenario doesn’t describe the otherwise robust 20 and 30 somethings buskers choosing live to a hobo chic bum lifestyle freeloading off the rest of us. That group can go screw themselves.
Druggies – boo hoo – but I didn’t put that crack pipe in your piehole and sure as heck won’t lift a finger to even flip you off. Grandma said “you made your bed, you sleep in it.”
Where is it written that the rest of us have to indulge your addiction or coddle your stupid butt because you want to get high?
Somehow in the last ten years society has turned being “homeless” into a career choice, but don’t ask me to pay for it.
This is a seriously adult step. We need to recognize the duty to care for each other and especially for those who do not compete as well as others. Thank you SB County and thank you taxpayers everywhere.
What does “Homeless veterans” mean?
2 years managing the soft serve yogurt machine on the USS Shoreduty?
Combat veterans deserve priority. Veterans that deployed to war zones next.
Veterans injured “onthe job”. In there too
95% of “Homeless” are drug addicted. They should only be able to use this program if they are in a manditory REHAB program, otherwise it’s all for nothing expect expanding drug dealing into the surrounding neighborhood…
City of Goleta Mayor Paula Perotte Thanks for the centralized crack house! most of these homeless its there choice(have a more vetted system for separating people in need) didnt you read the responses of the Goleta people in prior articles? obviously not. Look how successful Villa Rose was (a big failure that cost us 3mil) lets start holding these politicians accountable for what they do. we should have a volunteer community group that review the leaders performance before they get a paycheck (with the public chiming in )
Now that the Rose Garden in Santa Barbara has now been shown to be not a success, except for the 12 lucky recipients of housing, is there anything of this scale planned for the city of Santa Barbara?
Why do we continue to pretend that drug addicts are “homeless” and that putting a roof over their heads will solve their problems? If we truly want to help these people, we need to start focusing on treating addiction.
CHIP – What about those homeless people that aren’t addicts? Would this help them?
Sac it’s a good question. The truth is that those who are homeless for reasons other than substance abuse / criminality / uncontrolled mental illness / etc. – think the classical “lost my job” or “left an abusive relationship” or “fell on hard times” – they are the users of the existing infrastructure for the homeless. They are largely sheltered. We have a lot of programs city, county, state, nation-wide for exactly that type of homelessness. The people on the streets are in a different boat. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/serious-health-conditions-trauma-unsheltered-homeless In my personal opinion this article is written with strong undertones of a political stance I do not agree with (but you probably will), yet despite that there are some interesting tidbits you might be inclined to take seriously, and all the more since the tone of the article is probably something you agree with. Here is one that is very relevant, “In the study, 50% of unsheltered people reported that they suffer from a combination of a physical health condition, a mental health issue and a substance abuse condition — what researchers call a state of trimorbidity. That’s more than 25 times the number of sheltered individuals who reported this (2%).” The author tries to dry a direct causative relationship between these two things, but my strong two cents is that those who do NOT have a substance abuse problem or uncontrolled mental illness are precisely the homeless who end up easily receiving shelter because they are looking for it and open to it and amenable to rules such as curfews and no drugs and drinking, etc.
COAST – “95% of “Homeless” are drug addicted.” Where did you get that figure? According to everything I just googled, that’s not true at all. Here’s just one of many cites:
“The National Coalition for the Homeless has found that 38% of homeless people are alcohol dependent, and 26% are dependent on other harmful chemicals.” – https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/homelessness/
Even if it were 95%, should we just leave the addicts on the streets? Isn’t that what’s causing all the crime and fires?
There was a very reliable statistic that came out in the last year or so from UCLA I believe. I think it was maybe 87% of addicts were addicted or had serious mental health problems. I’ll try to dig it out for you Sac. Have to jet out now but will be back later.
SBTOWNIE – 87% of homeless (I think that’s what you meant) are addicts or suffering mental health isn’t the same as “95%” being addicts. Not all addicts suffer from mental health issues and vice versa.
Sac, if I had a nickel for every time you have accused me of “whataboutism” I’d be a rich man
There is a solution for the drug addiction crisis. Credit where it is due, governor newsom is proposing court ordered treatment for the addicted and mentally ill who are unable to care for themselves. Amazingly, a number of organizations are fighting to prevent this program from providing care to the severely addicted/mentally ill in the name of civil liberties.
https://news.yahoo.com/opposition-mounts-against-newsoms-plan-120045056.html
1:17 – Yet you whine about public health measures based on mythical “civil liberties”, as opposed to real ones.
127pm – I think you have things (quite literally) completely backwards!
Enablers unite! Good luck with that strategy…
BASIC – what is your strategy?
Good ol’ ACLU at it again.
Yeah, and put it in locations less posh and expensive than SB or SF or Newport Beach or whatever. Want help and shelter? Great. We offer it. At a location in the state not of your choosing. You may end up in Bakersfield and you won’t have a say. The location shouldn’t matter – shelter and the care you need is what should matter.
A couple days of withdrawal in jail? You mean then they get back out? Or then they’re in there without drugs for 6 months or a year?
Sac… I really thought you were getting somewhere there… A COUPLE DAYS!!!! This will dissuade no junky. No junky ever was dissuaded from doing drugs because he might go to jail for “a couple days.” I don’t think you and Voice agree as much as you think LOL
SBTOWNIE – why would you put someone in jail for 6 months to a year for being under the influence of drugs? Any idea how much that would cost? Are you seriously proposing that as a solution?
To help clarify my comment;
I’ve been to many places that boast “stats” as the ultimate guide to accomplishment of a given point..
but as I stated..the stats are wrong.
I know..I was there.
Wow Sacjon, SPOT ON!!! “It’s absolutely disgusting to use human beings as political statements.” so many examples going through my head right now…. so many…. like it’s the entire platform of one of our two major political parties. Refreshing to hear your disgusted by it too.
Identity politics: a political approach wherein people of a particular gender, religion, race, social background, social class, environmental, or other identifying factors, develop political agendas that are based upon these identities.
VOICE – again with the politicizing and false blanket statements…. “like it’s the entire platform of one of our two major political parties”
How many of your children had to move out of the area due to high rents? We all would love our kids to live near us. They go where they can afford. Yet my tax dollars go to house homeless and that’s not even going into the Illegal’s
from all over the world unvented no vaccines let loose all over our country with new cell phones envelopes full of money yeah look it up. Next we will join San Francisco and give them hotels drugs and booze too. Eat a nice kid the other day in DT SB from Ohio. Said he was living on the street by choice because we take care of him and in Ohio he quit his job and lives better here on the street go figure.
You do realize your criticisms on politicization and blanket statements (and whoataboutsim while we’re at it) are all one-way right?
My strategy is to enforce our local laws (sorry, you can’t camp or sleep wherever you want), drawback programs like this that are enabling these people to maintain the self-destructive lifestyles (the SB Rescue Mission can stay), and make them realize that Santa Barbara is not the place to be if you just want to lay around, drink, do drugs, and scam off people while you contribute absolutely nothing to society. There are job listings everywhere these days for anyone who wants to get their act together and start earning money for themselves. Or, go elsewhere.
I know this will hurt people’s feelings.
Sac… you are dreaming if you think 99% of junkies won’t choose to go to jail and then go back to the streets. We already have these laws on the books and people get this option! LOL. They choose the a few days in jail then streets! So all you’re saying is instead now we’d just start arresting them again instead of skipping that whole – expensive – part where we arrest, book, hold, run through courts, jail, then release over and over again.
If we converted every motel in the city there wouldn’t be enough housing to shelter the influx of those who can’t afford to live here, but would like to. The climate is excellent, the surroundings beautiful and the sympathy quotient high. Why live in Texas, Mississippi, Bakersfield if you can live here?
I’ve been homeless in SB..for several years..
I’ve been in combat..
I’ve been in a level 3 prison..
Believe me when I say;
The stats are all wrong.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame montecito residents for electing better leadership than Goleta residents and being more active in their community than Goleta residents. Remember, the mayor of Goleta, elected by the residents, is”thrilled and grateful” for this project.
LUVADUCK – this isn’t “low income” housing for those who showed up with not enough to buy a house, it’s for homeLESS people. The homeless in our town are not without homes because they came here thinking they could afford a home in SB. The people this is for couldn’t afford a home in “Texas, Mississippi, Bakersfield.” Cool the class hate for a bit and realize these aren’t the people you’re angry at.
CHIP – who did the Montecito residents elect as their mayor? Just curious…. LOL
Sac, my personal opinion is make all public drug use and all public camping illegal. You can’t camp in parks, on the street, on the beach, etc. Make caltrans or Amtrak clear their private land with emcampments by fining them heavily for allowing it every time something like a fire starts. If you are in a situation where you need to camp and are homeless you have three options – 1) keep moving all the time and hope you don’t get caught, 2) enter some type of purpose built shelter system built in very low cost areas of the state where the homeless can do whatever they want – a town for them – provide water, cafeteria, and then they can get drugs or alcohol or whatever they want out in the real world and do them in the camp, too, 3) you enter a different shelter system program because you want psychiatric help or substance abuse help and you enter treatments for these – if you do well and complete a step-up treatment program you can eventually qualify for HOUSING back in the real world instead of out in the middle of nowhere in the desert or the central valley – you can get put into reintegration to society pathway where you will receive support for X number of years assuming you do your part. Granted I think the last program should emphasize family reunification (anywhere in the country) and reintegration into locations where participants in the program actually have a shot at success – this might be lower cost areas of the state. It’s probably not going to make sense to get a guy off the streets in Beverly Hills and try to later reintegrate him to live in Beverly Hills because that’s just setting the financial burden too high to lead to success long term. Unless he’s from Beverly Hills and you can reunite him with family, try to reintegrate him somewhere more realistic.
I’d like to explore this “camp/town” some more. A few questions:
1) Would these camps be guarded/locked?
2) Would the drugs/booze be free? If so, are the taxpayers buying them? If not, what money earning options would be available to the “campers?”
3) Who would monitor these camps and clean the bathrooms, dining areas, living quarters, etc?
4) What medical/police presence would be available? Would there be onsite paramedics?
5) Would they be free to leave the camp at any time?
6) What country do you think we live in?
Sac, they’re already ODing on the streets or in the bushes. You know this right? OD numbers in the last year are INSANE. Over 100,000 people died of OD last year. In a facility, there could be staff on hand to administer Narcan at a moment’s notice, or to equip all the other residents with Narcan so they could administer it as well. And no, I would never advocate locking anyone in. But if they cannot camp on the streets or do drugs on the streets (this has been majorly decriminalized in recent years, reduced to misdemeanors that are not enforced or even ticketed on – please research this if you don’t believe me – it has been part of criminal justice reform to not lock people up or punish them for drug use as drug users are seen as victims [and I am not disagreeing many are victims of poor fortune or poor decisions or both]). In some cities like SF, the municipality even is sponsoring safe injection sites where people go to openly do drugs in environments sanctioned, staffed, and paid for by the city. I fail to see how this is different than the concept of dedicated living facilities for the homeless where they will be free to shoot up but will no longer have to be homeless and living on the streets as shelter will be provided.
Why do taxpayers and residents have to accommodate and pay for and house homeless? Often times they come from somewhere else! SB is a buglight for homeless due to the weather and freebies and tolerance. Maybe these people should be dropped off on the porches of politicians and activists who foist these terrible policies on the entire community of people who pay outrageous taxes and high cost of living! Don’t get me started on the dramatic increase in thefts and crimes! We are all fed up! Have any of you been on State street lately?
Several border states are doing something similar as a result of the executive branches failure to perform it’s duties in enforcing existing immigration and border security laws.
12:08 – you’re fed up with the homeless but you don’t want your tax dollars to go to help house them. Ok, so what’s your plan? Cut funding to help them? Guess what that does….. Tell us, what is YOUR plan to get rid of the homeless without spending any taxpayer dollars?
12:11 – and those Governors should be convicted of kidnapping. It’s absolutely disgusting to use human beings as political statements.