By David Misch Santa Monica
Evelyn Jerome’s “Think Twice” column (SMDP, Aug. 19, page 4) on OPCC and the homeless was filled with so much muddled thinking that it’s difficult to know where to begin. In order, then … “Build a new homeless shelter. Just what Santa Monica needs.” Um, exactly what would be the motivation to build a homeless shelter other than because we have homeless people who need shelter? I assume Ms. Jerome meant “needs” in the sense that we already have so many. But even if the city has shelter for 1 million people, if there are 1 million and one homeless, aren’t we short? Ever the champions of Orwellian “double-speak,” those Santa Monica city leaders. It’s called the “Ocean Park Community Center.” It’s not in Ocean Park. And it’s not a community center. 1. OPCC was founded in Ocean Park as a community center. It formally changed its name to “OPCC” about a year ago to reflect its current configuration. Still, I don’t know how you define “community center” but OPCC is the center for at least a half-dozen community-based social service organizations, which means it’s not an outright oxymoron like “military intelligence.” 2. It was not named by anyone from the city since it’s not a city organization. It’s a private organization which receives much (but not all) of its funding from the city. If the city didn’t fund it, though, it (and we the taxpayers) would still be responsible for paying to deal with the homeless directly.
“Your City Council approved the project, despite a chorus of opposition.” … and a chorus, at least equally large, of support. And why do you think politicians would support a project which helps people who, by and large, don’t vote? Do you think they’re being paid off by the wealthy and corrupt homeless lobby?
“It’s like having twice as many homeless shelters.” Yes, because OPCC compromised with the community by making the new shelter smaller and therefore needed its former location for the services it couldn’t offer at the new one.
“I don’t understand why Santa Monica has designated itself to be the social conscience of Southern California.”
I don’t understand why Ms. Jerome objects to Santa Monica dealing humanely with its own homeless population, a population which — if left completely on its own — would almost certainly be responsible for an increase in crime and disease.
“It’s fair to say that shelters and public feedings are only band-aids to this problem.” True enough. So what does Ms. Jerome propose as a more permanent solution?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 23, 2003. Read the original PDF.