Isn’t it ironic that my column last week on “too many social services” hit the streets the same time that Ocean Park Community Center Executive Director John Maceri hosted a press conference to unveil plans for a new, expanded homeless drop-in center and shelter.
OPCC’s new facility is slated for a two-story commercial building at 1751 Cloverfield Blvd. The property will cost $5-million with another $4 million needed for renovation. OPCC will ask the City Council to loan it $7 million for the venture at its Aug. 12 meeting.
The 22,000 square foot facility will house a drop-in center to service up to 250 people a day and a 55 bed shelter for homeless or mentally ill. It will replace OPCC’s operation at Seventh Street and Colorado Avenue, which must be abandoned because of bus yard expansion.
Julie Rusk, manager of the city’s social service department waxed enthusiastic about the “attractive exterior, landscaping, lighting and barriers to separate the outdoor area from motorists,” according to the Daily Press (Monday, July 14) Rusk sounds like OPCC’s public relations flack when she speaks glowingly about how this will “improve the quality of OPCC’s approach of giving consistent and ongoing care to help transition people from the streets, into jobs and long-term housing arrangements.”
When city staff lobbies for an outside vendor, “conflict of interest” comes to mind. For example, why doesn’t city staff lobby for the Santa Monica Chapter of the American Red Cross — charged with providing emergency support to the city in times of disaster such as at the tragic event this past Wednesday at the farmer’s market.
I don’t see staff advocating for another private, non-profit — the Boys and Girls Club, which provides services to children. But, when it comes to homeless services, campaigning for favored suppliers is par for the course.
Are city staff “samurai” working to promote an agenda on behalf of the City Council — the majority of who are unabashedly pro-homeless? Or is staff running amuck and using the city bully pulpit to promote personal agendas?
More social services attract more transients, enabling them to live on the streets.
Providers such as OPCC and homeless sympathizers then feel compelled to offer even more services. It’s a vicious circle that spirals on. In less tolerant communities, there are few if any services, food handouts and transients.
Rusk’s claims the cities “continuum of care” hasn’t been successful in transitioning people off the street.
However, according to the most recent “2001/2002 Annual Review of the city’s Coordinated Plan for Homeless Services and Related Issues,” of the 2,566 people who applied for services: 10 percent were placed in permanent housing, 13 percent were placed in transitional housing, 17 percent were placed in emergency shelters, 9 percent received permanent employment and 8 percent received temporary employment.
The “review” provides no information as to how many people stay in housing or maintain jobs much beyond placement. So, it appears the failure rate of the city’s “continuum of care” hovers around 90 percent — not including thousands who don’t apply for services or who refuse them.
Although Maceri says, “nothing has been cast in stone” and “the community is to be included in the process,” OPCC is in escrow on the property. Frankly, it smells like a done deal to me.
OPCC’s project will likely go through at the Michigan/Cloverfield site even though Maceri admits that it’s not the best location, but it was their only option. Hmm, I’m willing to bet that OPCC did-n’t look outside the city. Why should they? With their in-house lobbyists and blind support from politicians for programs that reek of failure, they’ll get what they want.
Will the City Council “loan” OPCC the $7 million?
You can bet the family Buick, they will. They beat around the bush about supporting schools, but they won’t hesitate to throw away millions to sustain a nasty and unsolvable problem.
And, they’ll probably purloin recently freed-up TORCA funds, which are supposed to subsidize housing for low and moderate income households, to do it too.
While some might argue that these funds can be used for “transitional housing,” which could include shelter beds, it was clearly not the intent of the measure.
So, watch for a court challenge on this. In the meantime, welcome to Santa Monica’s newest Skid Row. (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 18, 2003. Read the original PDF.