LAST WEEK, I WROTE THAT THE CITY’S new “Action plan to address homelessness in Santa Monica" was a step in the right direction, but incomplete.
It targets the most vulnerable on our streets for services, especially housing, and makes services more responsive to client needs. The plan hinges on finding housing for 110 individuals on its “most vulnerable” list to start. With little affordable housing available, only a few persons each year will be housed leaving many hundreds waiting on the streets while even more “homeless” arrive. The same is true with services: Too many homeless, limited space in effective programs.
Encouraging transients to go back home and connect with family, friends and local services has been very successful. It’s what privately funded, West Coast Care has been doing here over the last 18 months. Based on a theory that the longer persons are homeless here, the harder it is to get them back into productive society, helping them “go home” solves many problems. Cost of services are not on our dime and they’re getting help in a caring environment with a better chance of success most likely where affordable housing is available and other costs are a fraction of what they are here.
But, the city’s new action plan relies on serving people here, expanded outreach, more intensive case management and increased expenditures (currently budgeted at $2.8-million) for each individual in services. For example, the city’s one year old “homeless court" with its special $458,000 funding from L.A. County has adjudicated 92 individuals to date at a cost of $4,978 per person which includes some services, case management and evaluations.
While the city’s new plan is good for those desiring help, it falls short with those who eschew services. With many of our most familiar hard core “street people” refusing assistance, under the current legal system it’s almost impossible to get chronically homeless and mentally compromised individuals into hospitals, programs or even housing if they don’t want to go.
Once someone enters the “continuum of care" service stream, they often don’t get the assistance they need or meet with an indifferent service agency staff. City human services manager, Julie Rusk, told City Council, "Because of barriers to get into services, it [The West Los Angeles Veteran’s Administration) is a place where many homeless vets say they don’t want to go,” Her comment caught the attention of councilman, Bobby Shriver, who has worked hard to open housing at the V.A. for homeless vets.
Expenditures for public relations is part of the new plan. City Council OK’d $100,000 for “phase one” of a public relations campaign from GMMB, a large, national, political lobbying and PR firm to discourage us from giving money to panhandlers. More money will be committed for additional phases.
This money could be better spent. And, the proposed campaign puts the shoe on the wrong foot — making residents and visitors alike the “bad guys” while allowing panhandlers free rein. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going to work unless GMMB posts “greeters” around every public space, 24/7, with instructions to all entering to not “feed the bears.”
The council also directed staff to prepare an ordinance to prohibit seeking donations from benches on the Third Street Promenade. Once again, City Hall takes baby steps when it should leap forward.
I had lunch with a couple of friends a few weeks ago at Fatburger on Third Street. For nearly an hour, we watched a middle-aged woman on a shiny, red, electric scooter “work” the promenade by approaching everyone and asking for handouts. So, what about walkers or persons on scooters or wheelchairs soliciting donations? How about those sitting on curbs or walls who ask for spare change? I know there are constitutional rights here, but the city should find a legal way to restrict panhandling, period.
I personally get a kick out of stories about Times Square in New York City and how this same “action plan” formula reduced the number of homeless there. When I was in New York just after 9/11, I talked to many law enforcement and public safety personnel about the scarcity of vagrants and panhandlers in Times Square and other high-tourism areas.
I was told how the Times Square Business Improvement District (BID) security detail aggressively discouraged vagrants and transients in Times Square and environs. Whether by sheer presence or subtle intimidation, BID security (with backup from the New York Police Department) were effective. Perhaps here, a “non-sworn” Santa Monica Police detail similar to the department’s Park Rangers could discourage panhandlers and those exhibiting antisocial behavior from the Bayside area.
I suspect the city’s action plan will evolve because we all know finding housing is only a part of a complete program that must substantially reduce the number of transients in our community while helping those who are in real need — and do it in a cost-efficient and timely manner.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 10, 2008. Read the original PDF.