By Paul Bailey Santa Monica
(This letter was originally addressed to the Santa Monica City Council). Regarding the “Sobering Center” proposed for the CLARE facility at Pico Boulevard and Ninth Street.
As a six-year resident of Ninth Street I am firmly against this proposal. Ninth Street is already inundated with obviously intoxicated persons, staggering through the neighborhood. They are regularly observed “sleeping it off” on the sidewalks, in our yards and at the curbs. They congregate and loiter in the alleys and, many times openly, urinate and defecate in all the aforementioned areas.
Their alcohol containers, metal, plastic and glass are strewn across our properties and public spaces. Their glass containers are regularly found smashed where the children play and our car’s tires are exposed to these hazards.
The proposed “Sobering Center” for the CLARE facility, essentially a local non-secure jail, which would house inebriates from all over the city, will only further deteriorate the day-to-day lives of the residents of our neighborhood.
I don’t know about the distinguished members of the council, (because it won’t affect you, it won’t be at the corner of your street) but I for one (and many of my neighbors) will not relish the emergency vehicle traffic (police, ambulance and fire) necessary to service the proposed facility. Or having police with or without canines searching through our neighborhood in the middle of the night for an inebriate who has chosen to walk away from the unguarded “Sobering Center.”
Additionally, there are a multitude of reasons beyond the aforementioned which make the CLARE location a less than poor choice for the proposed “Sobering Center.” Not the least of which (if it weren’t so very serious it would be laughable) only steps away from this proposed facility are two high-traffic retail alcohol dispensaries — liquor stores.
Perhaps the soon to be vacated old police building in back of City Hall would provide a far superior location for a “Sobering Center.”
In conclusion, how a project of this nature could even be considered for placement in a residential neighborhood (much less progress to this stage) without first consulting the residents who will be directly impacted leaves me, more than a bit, perplexed.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 28, 2003. Read the original PDF.