Why are so many people so nervous about having neighbors who are different from themselves? Different color, different income, different age, different religion, etc?
New maps show segregation alive and well | Remapping Debate
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Santa Rosa Rejects Affordable Housing
The Santa Rosa City Council overturned the Planning Commission's approval of the EIR for the Elnoka affordable housing project on Tuesday (3/29/11). This well-designed project would provide 41 units of much-needed lower income housing and 20 or more units of moderate income housing. The Housing Advocacy Group urged the Council to reject the appeal by an association representing a neighboring single-family seniors development. The Association complained that the project would block their views, and create bothersome noises from families living next door. Click here for a news article about the public hearing. The site was listed in the city's general plan is available for higher density multifamily housing as a result of a lawsuit settlement agreement between HAG and the City in 2002. We're looking into ways we can make the city abide by there agreement. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Help: SR City Council to Hear Nimby Appeal of Elnoka Approval on Tuesday, March 8
The EIR for the proposed 206-unit Elnoka development on Sonoma Highway just west of Oakmont was approved 6-1 by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. Some residents of Oakmont have appealed that approval to the City Council. A public hearing is set for next Tuesday, March 8, at 5 pm on the appeal.
The developer, Oakmont Senior Living, has committed to make 20% of the units affordable to very low income households, and an additional 10% of the units affordable to moderate income households. This is an unprecedented affordable housing commitment by a market rate developer in Sonoma County. HAG has strongly supported the development. It is well-designed, economically integrated, and near shopping (Safeway / St. Francis), schools (Whited Elementary, Maria Carrillo HS), and public transit. The site is designated for multifamily development in the City's housing element. it will also serve as an example of what a developer can accomplish in terms of integrating affordable housing in a market rate development (at no cost to the city or to taxpayers). If this project succeeds, we hope other developers will follow its lead.
The opponents claim it will create more traffic, noise, and reduce air quality. but the EIR finds that all of these claimed impacts would be less than significant. In previous public hearings, opponents who live in Oakmont have asserted that the project should be restricted to seniors, because seniors live across the fence in Oakmont. Some said the noise from children playing in the streets in the project would be bothersome to them. We hope the City Council will not give much weight to these kinds of objections. The City badly needs affordable housing in general, and especially in this area which is heavily "segregated" with high end single-family homes at Oakmont, Skyhawk and Bennett Valley. Normally, this would be a "no brainer" but it's a big issue at Oakmont, and those folks tend to vote as a block. Here's an ad that ran in the Oakmont paper a couple years ago:
Some of these "vote for" folks are now on the Council, along with their allies Jake Ours and Scot Bartley. Most of those candidates that HAG endorsed are not on the Council (note: Michael Allen lives at Oakmont). The Oakmont NIMBY's have turned out in great numbers to oppose the project at previous public hearings. So we hope that some folks concerned about affordable housing can attend on Tuesday and speak in favor of this very worthwhile project.
Dick Latimer has written a wonderful article supporting the project that ran in today's Kenwood Press. CLICK HERE to read it. Thanks, Dick.
Give me a call or send me an e-mail if you have any questions.
David Grabill
707 528 6839
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Squatters
fyi ... from BeyondChron: San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily News » A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United St
____________________
A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United States
by Hannah E. Dobbz‚ Feb. 23‚ 2011
Matt Bruce is a magician. By this, I mean that he literally works kids’ parties for money and entertains friends with sorcery in his spare time. His room is bursting with occult paraphernalia and he has countless tricks up his sleeve. But Matt Bruce is no one-trick pony; he knows more than how to manipulate a deck of cards and how to have a quarter crop up behind your ear: Matt Bruce knows how to make rent bills disappear.
Bruce and his friends haven’t paid to live in their bungalow home in Salt Lake City, Utah, in over three years. How do they do it? While most magicians don’t reveal their secrets, Bruce is notably open about his illegal living situation. Squatting is not a new form of rent evasion, but it is an increasingly practiced one – and in light of the so-called “housing crisis” of the late 2000s, squatters are increasingly comfortable discussing their lifestyles.
He summed up their ability to maintain the property with the words of a city worker who learned of the squatters a few months after they moved in: “If you don’t say anything, I won’t say anything. You took the eyesore out of the neighborhood.”
Indeed, the rundown property that had once attracted drug addicts and other unseemly types by its ramshackle appearance now glows with life. The mere presence of the new caretakers drove away the seedy elements, and the small gesture of taking the boards off the windows spoke volumes for the mood of the property.
It is for this reason that squatting has become a popular discussion topic in a post–housing-bubble era. With 14 percent of living units in the United States vacant at the end of 2010, many people are questioning the logic of the real estate market, and some are bucking the system by occupying vacant but usable properties. Families and individuals who can no longer afford the high cost of living, then, are able to find homes in houses that are sometimes in better condition than rental properties. And neighbors often turn a blind eye to the illegality of the squatters’ methods since the move-in can actually increase the value of formerly unoccupied properties.
In this way, squatting in the United States is taking on more European overtones. Europe is famous for its squatting history, with its grandiose stories of squatted night clubs in England and squatted castles in Spain. Some countries enjoy what are often called “open” squatting laws, which encourage squatters to openly occupy abandoned buildings. Amsterdam, for example, is known for its comically straight-forward requirement of a chair, a table, and a bed in a squatted building for 48 hours to constitute a legal property transfer. In these situations, neighbors are often supportive. After all, abandoned properties are a symptom of a broken property system. Why not address it?
More recently, some European countries have begun tightening their formerly lax squatting rules, which some read as a slipping away of what was once part of a powerful cultural history. But while a legislative shift is happening now overseas, a cultural shift is beginning here in the States.
Rich countries such as the United States are accustomed to surplus. Just as consumers enjoy a surplus of food, clothes, and plastic trinkets in the U.S., they similarly enjoy a surplus of real estate. Even beyond the housing-bubble burst, developers continue to build new living units despite a surfeit of old ones. This is where the term “housing crisis” is farcical at best and downright inaccurate at worst. The term “crisis” implies a shortage -- an idea that Americans are rarely familiar with; instead, the American poor are victimized by a maldistribution of resources.
While there has never been a shortage of space in the United States, Americans have historically deluded themselves into a state of spatial urgency, moving further West and always developing more for fear of a shortage.
The same can be said of the “housing crisis” that began in late 2007: The most famous example of a wide housing gap is that of Miami, Fl., which was supposedly hit hardest by the economic implosion. But Miami had a 10-percent vacancy rate in affordable and public housing even before the alleged crisis. Further, the city had demolished 482 units of public housing, and, despite $8.5 million of city money allocated to the rebuilding of affordable units, the lot remained vacant until it was later offered to developers at no charge.
Such shenanigans inspired the Miami Herald’s “House of Lies” series, which highlights the corruption and incompetency of city politicians with regard to housing, as well as the well-known organized-squatting movement Take Back the Land.
But squatting was not born of the housing bust: Squatting has a long history in the United States, beginning with colonization, extending through Western Expansion land grants and land boom legislation, homesteading, and into modern housing justice movements like that of ACORN and Homes Not Jails. If nothing else, squatters have historically catalyzed property legislation reform by attacking with two prongs: (1) garnering public support by calling attention to the basic right to personal space and shelter, and (2) becoming such a nuisance to property managers, speculators, and law enforcement that legislators are compelled to create other options.
Unfortunately, little information is broadly available about squatters and squatting. Here and there is mention of them in historical texts, and during the height of the foreclosure crisis articles about down-and-out families cascaded into the news and then quickly evaporated. Perhaps this information firewall is in the nature of American squatting, which remains clandestine; like the tunnel dwellers of New York City and Las Vegas, squatting movements live underground. And while this invisibility is not unintentional, as squatting is indeed an illicit lifestyle, it is squatters’ invisibility that siphons their power and cripples their political sway.
When squatters and other property outlaws can again unite, organize, and step into the limelight to publicly demand housing justice (as they historically have), we may see surprising changes in the legal framework of our predatory property system. Many revolutions begin underground. But none of them can stay there for long.
Hannah Dobbz is the director of the documentary film Shelter: A Squatumentary. She is currently researching and writing a book [AK Press] on the history of squatting, land struggles, and property law in the United States. To view her Kickstarter page or to support her work, please visit: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1578702306/the-history-and-future-of-squatting-in-the-us-the
____________________
A Multi-Story Underground: Squatters in the United States
by Hannah E. Dobbz‚ Feb. 23‚ 2011
Matt Bruce is a magician. By this, I mean that he literally works kids’ parties for money and entertains friends with sorcery in his spare time. His room is bursting with occult paraphernalia and he has countless tricks up his sleeve. But Matt Bruce is no one-trick pony; he knows more than how to manipulate a deck of cards and how to have a quarter crop up behind your ear: Matt Bruce knows how to make rent bills disappear.
Bruce and his friends haven’t paid to live in their bungalow home in Salt Lake City, Utah, in over three years. How do they do it? While most magicians don’t reveal their secrets, Bruce is notably open about his illegal living situation. Squatting is not a new form of rent evasion, but it is an increasingly practiced one – and in light of the so-called “housing crisis” of the late 2000s, squatters are increasingly comfortable discussing their lifestyles.
He summed up their ability to maintain the property with the words of a city worker who learned of the squatters a few months after they moved in: “If you don’t say anything, I won’t say anything. You took the eyesore out of the neighborhood.”
Indeed, the rundown property that had once attracted drug addicts and other unseemly types by its ramshackle appearance now glows with life. The mere presence of the new caretakers drove away the seedy elements, and the small gesture of taking the boards off the windows spoke volumes for the mood of the property.
It is for this reason that squatting has become a popular discussion topic in a post–housing-bubble era. With 14 percent of living units in the United States vacant at the end of 2010, many people are questioning the logic of the real estate market, and some are bucking the system by occupying vacant but usable properties. Families and individuals who can no longer afford the high cost of living, then, are able to find homes in houses that are sometimes in better condition than rental properties. And neighbors often turn a blind eye to the illegality of the squatters’ methods since the move-in can actually increase the value of formerly unoccupied properties.
In this way, squatting in the United States is taking on more European overtones. Europe is famous for its squatting history, with its grandiose stories of squatted night clubs in England and squatted castles in Spain. Some countries enjoy what are often called “open” squatting laws, which encourage squatters to openly occupy abandoned buildings. Amsterdam, for example, is known for its comically straight-forward requirement of a chair, a table, and a bed in a squatted building for 48 hours to constitute a legal property transfer. In these situations, neighbors are often supportive. After all, abandoned properties are a symptom of a broken property system. Why not address it?
More recently, some European countries have begun tightening their formerly lax squatting rules, which some read as a slipping away of what was once part of a powerful cultural history. But while a legislative shift is happening now overseas, a cultural shift is beginning here in the States.
Rich countries such as the United States are accustomed to surplus. Just as consumers enjoy a surplus of food, clothes, and plastic trinkets in the U.S., they similarly enjoy a surplus of real estate. Even beyond the housing-bubble burst, developers continue to build new living units despite a surfeit of old ones. This is where the term “housing crisis” is farcical at best and downright inaccurate at worst. The term “crisis” implies a shortage -- an idea that Americans are rarely familiar with; instead, the American poor are victimized by a maldistribution of resources.
While there has never been a shortage of space in the United States, Americans have historically deluded themselves into a state of spatial urgency, moving further West and always developing more for fear of a shortage.
The same can be said of the “housing crisis” that began in late 2007: The most famous example of a wide housing gap is that of Miami, Fl., which was supposedly hit hardest by the economic implosion. But Miami had a 10-percent vacancy rate in affordable and public housing even before the alleged crisis. Further, the city had demolished 482 units of public housing, and, despite $8.5 million of city money allocated to the rebuilding of affordable units, the lot remained vacant until it was later offered to developers at no charge.
Such shenanigans inspired the Miami Herald’s “House of Lies” series, which highlights the corruption and incompetency of city politicians with regard to housing, as well as the well-known organized-squatting movement Take Back the Land.
But squatting was not born of the housing bust: Squatting has a long history in the United States, beginning with colonization, extending through Western Expansion land grants and land boom legislation, homesteading, and into modern housing justice movements like that of ACORN and Homes Not Jails. If nothing else, squatters have historically catalyzed property legislation reform by attacking with two prongs: (1) garnering public support by calling attention to the basic right to personal space and shelter, and (2) becoming such a nuisance to property managers, speculators, and law enforcement that legislators are compelled to create other options.
Unfortunately, little information is broadly available about squatters and squatting. Here and there is mention of them in historical texts, and during the height of the foreclosure crisis articles about down-and-out families cascaded into the news and then quickly evaporated. Perhaps this information firewall is in the nature of American squatting, which remains clandestine; like the tunnel dwellers of New York City and Las Vegas, squatting movements live underground. And while this invisibility is not unintentional, as squatting is indeed an illicit lifestyle, it is squatters’ invisibility that siphons their power and cripples their political sway.
When squatters and other property outlaws can again unite, organize, and step into the limelight to publicly demand housing justice (as they historically have), we may see surprising changes in the legal framework of our predatory property system. Many revolutions begin underground. But none of them can stay there for long.
Hannah Dobbz is the director of the documentary film Shelter: A Squatumentary. She is currently researching and writing a book [AK Press] on the history of squatting, land struggles, and property law in the United States. To view her Kickstarter page or to support her work, please visit: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1578702306/the-history-and-future-of-squatting-in-the-us-the
Thursday, February 10, 2011
To improve outcomes for poor kids, let them move to the suburbs
By Robert C. Embry Jr.
Baltimore Sun
3:06 PM EST, February 9, 2011
One of the most important recent pieces of education research was released last year — and promptly ignored. The Century Foundation's report "Housing Policy is School Policy" confirms the seminal 1966 finding of Johns Hopkins University sociologist James Coleman: Namely, the school-based variable that most profoundly affects student performance is the socioeconomic composition of the school. In short, poor children do better if they attend schools with affluent children.
The "new" news in the report? It highlights the critical out-of-school influence of where the low-income children reside. Poor children attending an affluent school do even better, it turns out, if they also live in an affluent neighborhood.
In this study, researcher Heather Schwartz examines the impact of Montgomery County's economically integrated housing policies on the academic success of low-income families who live in federally subsidized public housing scattered throughout the county. Families were randomly assigned by the county's public housing authority to both affluent and relatively non-affluent neighborhoods.
The findings: Children who lived in neighborhoods where less than 20 percent of the neighborhood's elementary school's population was poor significantly outperformed similar low-income children who lived in neighborhoods with public schools that had more than 35 percent of students in poverty. In fact, poor children in the low-poverty schools were able to close the achievement gap with their wealthier suburban peers by 50 percent in math and one-third in reading. This was true even though the group of poorer schools received additional funding to implement the more traditional remedial programs to address the academic challenges of low-income students.
A wide body of research over the past three decades has documented the educational benefits of moving from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods. Research on the remedy in the landmark 1976 Supreme Court housing decision in Hills v. Gautreaux demonstrated that children whose families moved from public housing and other inner-city Chicago neighborhoods to racially and economically integrated suburban neighborhoods were far more likely to succeed in school and go on to college or full-time employment than children whose families stayed in Chicago.
The key finding of this cumulative research is that the combination of living in a low-poverty neighborhood and attending a low-poverty school impacts educational performance of poor children more than traditional reforms and increased funding.
If the socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood and the school are so critical to the educational success of poor children, why have these factors been neglected in the federal Department of Education's reform agenda? Why is this remedy generally ignored in lawsuits attempting to obtain an adequate education for poor children? Why can one look in vain at state and local school board meetings to find any mention of the subject?
One reason is that, to date, there has been no legal compulsion to do so.
A second reason is the long-standing hostility of suburban jurisdictions that routinely oppose any efforts to economically integrate their low-poverty schools, even in small increments.
And finally, there is a shortage of affordable housing units in the affluent neighborhoods that would yield the biggest educational difference.
Given all that, if one agrees with the research on the positive impact of neighborhood and school economic integration, what might be done for Baltimore's poorest families?
One potential scenario: Maryland could enact legislation to permit state education aid to Baltimore City to be used as a rent certificate for families of poor children in failing schools to move to low-poverty neighborhoods in other school districts. It is of interest to note that the Maryland's state aid to Baltimore City schools is $12,191 per pupil, roughly the net cost of a rent subsidy needed to permit an urban family living in concentrated poverty to move to a low-poverty, suburban neighborhood.
Such a shift would give low-income children access to low-poverty schools on a voluntary basis, with the added benefits of living in the same community as their more affluent classmates. The good news is that there are at least 88 public schools in the counties surrounding Baltimore City that would qualify as potential sites, with less than 20 percent of children in poverty.
Clearly, there are many obstacles to accessing the opportunities posed by integrative housing and schools for our poorest families. Yet the research is persuasive: The answer to how to close the achievement gap between poor and rich kids may not be in the debates about class size, math curricula, and other school-based reforms, but in the state's facilitating the enrollment of low-income children in low-poverty schools and housing their families in low-poverty neighborhoods.
Now we must decide whether we continue to ignore the implications of this evidence or choose to find solutions that facilitate greater socioeconomic integration of low-income children.
Robert C. Embry Jr., president of the Abell Foundation, is a former member of the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City and former president of the Maryland State Board of Education. His e-mail is embry@abell.org.
Baltimore Sun
3:06 PM EST, February 9, 2011
One of the most important recent pieces of education research was released last year — and promptly ignored. The Century Foundation's report "Housing Policy is School Policy" confirms the seminal 1966 finding of Johns Hopkins University sociologist James Coleman: Namely, the school-based variable that most profoundly affects student performance is the socioeconomic composition of the school. In short, poor children do better if they attend schools with affluent children.
The "new" news in the report? It highlights the critical out-of-school influence of where the low-income children reside. Poor children attending an affluent school do even better, it turns out, if they also live in an affluent neighborhood.
In this study, researcher Heather Schwartz examines the impact of Montgomery County's economically integrated housing policies on the academic success of low-income families who live in federally subsidized public housing scattered throughout the county. Families were randomly assigned by the county's public housing authority to both affluent and relatively non-affluent neighborhoods.
The findings: Children who lived in neighborhoods where less than 20 percent of the neighborhood's elementary school's population was poor significantly outperformed similar low-income children who lived in neighborhoods with public schools that had more than 35 percent of students in poverty. In fact, poor children in the low-poverty schools were able to close the achievement gap with their wealthier suburban peers by 50 percent in math and one-third in reading. This was true even though the group of poorer schools received additional funding to implement the more traditional remedial programs to address the academic challenges of low-income students.
A wide body of research over the past three decades has documented the educational benefits of moving from high-poverty to low-poverty neighborhoods. Research on the remedy in the landmark 1976 Supreme Court housing decision in Hills v. Gautreaux demonstrated that children whose families moved from public housing and other inner-city Chicago neighborhoods to racially and economically integrated suburban neighborhoods were far more likely to succeed in school and go on to college or full-time employment than children whose families stayed in Chicago.
The key finding of this cumulative research is that the combination of living in a low-poverty neighborhood and attending a low-poverty school impacts educational performance of poor children more than traditional reforms and increased funding.
If the socioeconomic composition of the neighborhood and the school are so critical to the educational success of poor children, why have these factors been neglected in the federal Department of Education's reform agenda? Why is this remedy generally ignored in lawsuits attempting to obtain an adequate education for poor children? Why can one look in vain at state and local school board meetings to find any mention of the subject?
One reason is that, to date, there has been no legal compulsion to do so.
A second reason is the long-standing hostility of suburban jurisdictions that routinely oppose any efforts to economically integrate their low-poverty schools, even in small increments.
And finally, there is a shortage of affordable housing units in the affluent neighborhoods that would yield the biggest educational difference.
Given all that, if one agrees with the research on the positive impact of neighborhood and school economic integration, what might be done for Baltimore's poorest families?
One potential scenario: Maryland could enact legislation to permit state education aid to Baltimore City to be used as a rent certificate for families of poor children in failing schools to move to low-poverty neighborhoods in other school districts. It is of interest to note that the Maryland's state aid to Baltimore City schools is $12,191 per pupil, roughly the net cost of a rent subsidy needed to permit an urban family living in concentrated poverty to move to a low-poverty, suburban neighborhood.
Such a shift would give low-income children access to low-poverty schools on a voluntary basis, with the added benefits of living in the same community as their more affluent classmates. The good news is that there are at least 88 public schools in the counties surrounding Baltimore City that would qualify as potential sites, with less than 20 percent of children in poverty.
Clearly, there are many obstacles to accessing the opportunities posed by integrative housing and schools for our poorest families. Yet the research is persuasive: The answer to how to close the achievement gap between poor and rich kids may not be in the debates about class size, math curricula, and other school-based reforms, but in the state's facilitating the enrollment of low-income children in low-poverty schools and housing their families in low-poverty neighborhoods.
Now we must decide whether we continue to ignore the implications of this evidence or choose to find solutions that facilitate greater socioeconomic integration of low-income children.
Robert C. Embry Jr., president of the Abell Foundation, is a former member of the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City and former president of the Maryland State Board of Education. His e-mail is embry@abell.org.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
NYT: Happy Endig to Foreclosure Tale
BUSINESS DAY | December 04, 2010
Talking Business: A Happy Ending to a Raw, but Common, Tale
By JOE NOCERA
Lilla Roberts fell behind on her mortgage for a while over a paying history of around 20 years. But her modification was so sloppily handled, she could have lost her home.
Talking Business: A Happy Ending to a Raw, but Common, Tale
By JOE NOCERA
Lilla Roberts fell behind on her mortgage for a while over a paying history of around 20 years. But her modification was so sloppily handled, she could have lost her home.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
HAG Endorses Haenel, Jacobi and Gorin for Santa Rosa City Council
The Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group (“HAG”) seeks to promote affordable housing and housing for persons with special needs such as farmworkers, seniors, persons with disabilities and the homeleess. Occasionally we make endorsements in local elections when we candidates who are extremely well qualified and who support our affordable housing goals.
In this year’s election for the Santa Rosa City Council, we are pleased to endorse Larry Haenel, Veronica Jacobi and Mayor Susan Gorin.
As a member of the Santa Rosa School Board for the past six years, Larry Haenel has been a strong and effective voice for excellence and equity in the City’s schools. He taught at Montgomery High School for 32 years where he was chair of the English Department, and he continues to mentor student teachers for Dominican University. He is a regular volunteer peer counselor at the Family Service Agency. He’s a real estate agent and understands the complexities of affordable housing development.
Veronica Jacobi has been a consistent and strong voice for affordable housing on the Santa Rosa City Council for the past four years. Her passion is protecting the environment for the people of Santa Rosa and for future generations. She understands that an essential component of environmental protection is social equity - affordable housing, shelters, transitional housing and programs to ensure that Santa Rosa addresses the needs of all its residents, regardless of their economic status.
Susan Gorin has been the City’s Mayor for the past two years, and has been an effective leader of the City Council. She has generally supported affordable housing efforts. As Mayor, she has consistently sought to find common ground with other members of the City Council, and to build consensus among competing interest groups in the City. We believe she deserves a second term of office, and HAG heartily endorses her candidacy.
In this year’s election for the Santa Rosa City Council, we are pleased to endorse Larry Haenel, Veronica Jacobi and Mayor Susan Gorin.
As a member of the Santa Rosa School Board for the past six years, Larry Haenel has been a strong and effective voice for excellence and equity in the City’s schools. He taught at Montgomery High School for 32 years where he was chair of the English Department, and he continues to mentor student teachers for Dominican University. He is a regular volunteer peer counselor at the Family Service Agency. He’s a real estate agent and understands the complexities of affordable housing development.
Veronica Jacobi has been a consistent and strong voice for affordable housing on the Santa Rosa City Council for the past four years. Her passion is protecting the environment for the people of Santa Rosa and for future generations. She understands that an essential component of environmental protection is social equity - affordable housing, shelters, transitional housing and programs to ensure that Santa Rosa addresses the needs of all its residents, regardless of their economic status.
Susan Gorin has been the City’s Mayor for the past two years, and has been an effective leader of the City Council. She has generally supported affordable housing efforts. As Mayor, she has consistently sought to find common ground with other members of the City Council, and to build consensus among competing interest groups in the City. We believe she deserves a second term of office, and HAG heartily endorses her candidacy.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Santa Rosa Budget Cuts Threaten Homeless Services
To: Mayor Susan Gorin and Members of the Santa Rosa City Council
September 13, 2010
The City Council agenda for Tuesday (tomorrow) includes a proposal for reduced homeless shelter funding for 2010-2011. It's hard to figure out what's going on from the agenda materials, but the City appears to be reducing funding by about $40,000. We heard about this a couple months ago and learned that Catholic Charities, the shelter operator, was planning to close the Homeless Services Center on Morgan Street, supposedly in response to the City's funding cut. We learned later that the City will receive an an additional $15k in Federal CDGB funding for homeless services for the coming year, and Catholic Charities is getting about $1.3 million in "Homeless Prevention and Rehousing Program" funding - that's exactly what their Homeless Services Center does and does well. But the fate of the Homeless Services Center is still unclear.
The Homeless Services Center provides essential and even lifesaving services for homeless persons. These include showers, hearty breakfasts, job counseling and placement, mail boxes, guidance with social services, drug/alcohol counseling, occasional legal assistance, transitional housing, health care and respite beds for homeless who are seriously ill but not so ill that they have to be hospitalized.
We met recently with Larry Lakes, Director of Catholic Charities. He was cordial but vague about their plans, saying that they were considering moving the Center from Morgan Street to Samuel Jones Hall out on Fulton Avenue, but would probably keep Morgan Street as a "drop off and pick up" site, with actual "services" provided out at the Samuel Jones Hall on Fulton Avenue.
When asked why, he said 1) the "consolidation" would save money; and 2) some neighbors were opposed to the Homeless Services Center at its current location, although it’s been there for more than 20 years. But Fulton Avenue is a long way from downtown, where hundreds of homeless people spend their days (and nights). Mr. Lakes insisted that it would not be a problem for homeless persons to get out to Samuel Jones, and said Catholic Charities would provide shuttle bus service. He didn't explain how Catholic Charities could afford to buy/maintain a shuttle bus and pay a driver, but were having difficulty finding $25,000 to offset the amount of the city's proposed cut.
Funding is available to continue the services provided at the Homeless Services Center at its current location - from the business community that depends on the Center staff to help address problems in the downtown area when they arise; from other non-profits that have historically supported homeless services like the Community Foundation; and from various state/federal programs such as the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Resettlement Act ("HPRP") which is providing $1.3 million to Catholic Charities for 2010 and 2011. We're not aware of any efforts by Catholic Charities to seek additional funding to offset the $25,000 cut by the City. If funding is not the problem, why would the City Council be so callous and uncaring as to allow the Homeless Services Center to shut down on Morgan Street? The City closed the 40+ bed downtown shelter on Brookwood last year. Samuel Jones has been filled to capacity all summer. One homeless client of mine says he thinks the "progressive" City Council wants to curry favor with the NIMBY's who've been trying to force the Center to leave the Morgan Street location for years.
According to HUD, homelessness across the country has been increasing at an annual rate of over 10%. The annual homeless count showed an even greater increase in Sonoma County. Cutbacks in mental health services, high unemployment, foreclosures, and large numbers of veterans returning from the war(s) mean the numbers will continue to increase.
We hope the City will reconsider cutting the $25,000 from its homeless services budget so that Catholic Charities won’t have a convenient reason to shut down the Center, and we hope Catholic Charities will look a little harder for ways to offset any cuts the City has to make. Other cities, including Rohnert Park, have tapped their redevelopment funds to support homeless programs during the current budget crisis. Santa Rosa's spending millions on the AT&T building; millions on developing the Railroad Square area; millions on a cosmetic reconfiguration of Courthouse Sqare and more millions on "upgrading" the Coddingtown Mall. Surely they can find a measly $25,000 to provide essential services at the Homeless Services Center for another year. A few NIMBY votes shouldn’t be a factor in this. Surely the City and its largest charitable organization can find a way here.
September 13, 2010
The City Council agenda for Tuesday (tomorrow) includes a proposal for reduced homeless shelter funding for 2010-2011. It's hard to figure out what's going on from the agenda materials, but the City appears to be reducing funding by about $40,000. We heard about this a couple months ago and learned that Catholic Charities, the shelter operator, was planning to close the Homeless Services Center on Morgan Street, supposedly in response to the City's funding cut. We learned later that the City will receive an an additional $15k in Federal CDGB funding for homeless services for the coming year, and Catholic Charities is getting about $1.3 million in "Homeless Prevention and Rehousing Program" funding - that's exactly what their Homeless Services Center does and does well. But the fate of the Homeless Services Center is still unclear.
The Homeless Services Center provides essential and even lifesaving services for homeless persons. These include showers, hearty breakfasts, job counseling and placement, mail boxes, guidance with social services, drug/alcohol counseling, occasional legal assistance, transitional housing, health care and respite beds for homeless who are seriously ill but not so ill that they have to be hospitalized.
We met recently with Larry Lakes, Director of Catholic Charities. He was cordial but vague about their plans, saying that they were considering moving the Center from Morgan Street to Samuel Jones Hall out on Fulton Avenue, but would probably keep Morgan Street as a "drop off and pick up" site, with actual "services" provided out at the Samuel Jones Hall on Fulton Avenue.
When asked why, he said 1) the "consolidation" would save money; and 2) some neighbors were opposed to the Homeless Services Center at its current location, although it’s been there for more than 20 years. But Fulton Avenue is a long way from downtown, where hundreds of homeless people spend their days (and nights). Mr. Lakes insisted that it would not be a problem for homeless persons to get out to Samuel Jones, and said Catholic Charities would provide shuttle bus service. He didn't explain how Catholic Charities could afford to buy/maintain a shuttle bus and pay a driver, but were having difficulty finding $25,000 to offset the amount of the city's proposed cut.
Funding is available to continue the services provided at the Homeless Services Center at its current location - from the business community that depends on the Center staff to help address problems in the downtown area when they arise; from other non-profits that have historically supported homeless services like the Community Foundation; and from various state/federal programs such as the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Resettlement Act ("HPRP") which is providing $1.3 million to Catholic Charities for 2010 and 2011. We're not aware of any efforts by Catholic Charities to seek additional funding to offset the $25,000 cut by the City. If funding is not the problem, why would the City Council be so callous and uncaring as to allow the Homeless Services Center to shut down on Morgan Street? The City closed the 40+ bed downtown shelter on Brookwood last year. Samuel Jones has been filled to capacity all summer. One homeless client of mine says he thinks the "progressive" City Council wants to curry favor with the NIMBY's who've been trying to force the Center to leave the Morgan Street location for years.
According to HUD, homelessness across the country has been increasing at an annual rate of over 10%. The annual homeless count showed an even greater increase in Sonoma County. Cutbacks in mental health services, high unemployment, foreclosures, and large numbers of veterans returning from the war(s) mean the numbers will continue to increase.
We hope the City will reconsider cutting the $25,000 from its homeless services budget so that Catholic Charities won’t have a convenient reason to shut down the Center, and we hope Catholic Charities will look a little harder for ways to offset any cuts the City has to make. Other cities, including Rohnert Park, have tapped their redevelopment funds to support homeless programs during the current budget crisis. Santa Rosa's spending millions on the AT&T building; millions on developing the Railroad Square area; millions on a cosmetic reconfiguration of Courthouse Sqare and more millions on "upgrading" the Coddingtown Mall. Surely they can find a measly $25,000 to provide essential services at the Homeless Services Center for another year. A few NIMBY votes shouldn’t be a factor in this. Surely the City and its largest charitable organization can find a way here.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Letter to Santa Rosa re Density Bonus Ordinance
The City of Santa Rosa's updating its density bonus ordinance, supposedly to comply with state requirements set out in Government Code Sec. 65915. That section says, in a nutshell, that a developer who includes some affordable units in its residential development is entitled to a density bonus and various "concessions and incentives" to help recoup the cost of providing the affordable units. It's a great program to generate some affordable housing at no cost to taxpayers, while helping to integrate new developments with families of different incomes, etc. But the draft that the City's looking at adopting makes it really difficult or impossible for developers to get a density bonus or to qualify for concessions and incentives. Why? What are they thinking? Click here to see a letter that HAG recently sent to the City about the proposed ordinance.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Urbanist Thinking at Burning Man
From Planetizen
By Nate Berg, Staff writer 9/5/10
It's already disappearing. The temporary city that forms during the annual Burning Man event is fading away, as the tens of thousands of people who traveled out to live in the desert of northwestern Nevada for the past week have filed out of the void and returned back to the rest of the world. The event's organizers and volunteers are still erasing the traces of the event, from demolishing structures to removing fencing to picking up trash. Within another week or so, the entire city will have disappeared.
It's an interesting way for a city to exist -- just a few weeks at a time, once a year. But it's been working for Burning Man and Black Rock City, the name of that temporary city that forms and disbands almost as soon as it comes to full life. On top of what's already a unique experiment in citymaking, the theme of this year's event was Metropolis, which spurred the tens of thousands of people and artists who make up the city to think a little more about how their "party in the desert" is actually a little city and community (the fourth largest city in Nevada during its run), and how it relates to their world beyond the desert.
51,515 people had driven themselves into the far-off Black Rock Desert for the event by midnight last Friday, a new attendance record for the event, which has taken place every year in one form or another since 1986. The population has steadily increased over the years, a reality that has gradually turned the artist/anarchist/bohemian event into a temporary but perennial small-scale city. The Metropolis theme offered an interesting chance for attendees to think a little more about Burning Man's cityness, and the event's relation to real life in the "default world". Yeah, it's a party in the desert, but it's also an event that takes very seriously the community and civic experience it creates.
This year's theme was definitely an appropriate one for the event, and it inspired many city- and architecture-based art works and installations.
[See http://www.planetizen.com/node/45856 for some interesting photo's]
The art is a major part of the event, and its breadth and detail is almost overwhelming. It's visual saturation that makes grasping the entirety of the event almost impossible. That some of the art at this year's event was related to cities was interesting, but that recognition of the event as a city is not something unique to 2010. How Burning Man functions as a city, and how that function evolved, is what makes Burning Man so interesting to me. It's a topic I'll be exploring in much further detail in a future article, and something touched upon in various places, including this piece from the January 2009 issue of Architect Magazine, more recently by Greg Scruggs writing on this year's event for Next American City, the Burning Man organization's own Metropol blog series, and in this blog post from The Architect's Newspaper looking at some of the architecture-related artworks on display this year.
It was an especially interesting year to be at Burning Man because of the theme. Conversations with half-naked people about infill in the camping areas and pedestrian-scaled design were an unexpected departure from the typical desert camp conversation. Whether it's this year's theme that got those conversations going is hard to say. The event itself is becoming a metropolis, and it seems that people are increasingly drawing that conclusion and a connection to the cities they regularly experience. The good thing about this year's Metropolis theme is that the urbanist discourse on Burning Man -- and its impact on actual cities and communities beyond the event -- is likely to continue.
Nate Berg is a contributing editor for Planetizen and freelance journalist.
By Nate Berg, Staff writer 9/5/10
It's already disappearing. The temporary city that forms during the annual Burning Man event is fading away, as the tens of thousands of people who traveled out to live in the desert of northwestern Nevada for the past week have filed out of the void and returned back to the rest of the world. The event's organizers and volunteers are still erasing the traces of the event, from demolishing structures to removing fencing to picking up trash. Within another week or so, the entire city will have disappeared.
It's an interesting way for a city to exist -- just a few weeks at a time, once a year. But it's been working for Burning Man and Black Rock City, the name of that temporary city that forms and disbands almost as soon as it comes to full life. On top of what's already a unique experiment in citymaking, the theme of this year's event was Metropolis, which spurred the tens of thousands of people and artists who make up the city to think a little more about how their "party in the desert" is actually a little city and community (the fourth largest city in Nevada during its run), and how it relates to their world beyond the desert.
51,515 people had driven themselves into the far-off Black Rock Desert for the event by midnight last Friday, a new attendance record for the event, which has taken place every year in one form or another since 1986. The population has steadily increased over the years, a reality that has gradually turned the artist/anarchist/bohemian event into a temporary but perennial small-scale city. The Metropolis theme offered an interesting chance for attendees to think a little more about Burning Man's cityness, and the event's relation to real life in the "default world". Yeah, it's a party in the desert, but it's also an event that takes very seriously the community and civic experience it creates.
This year's theme was definitely an appropriate one for the event, and it inspired many city- and architecture-based art works and installations.
[See http://www.planetizen.com/node/45856 for some interesting photo's]
The art is a major part of the event, and its breadth and detail is almost overwhelming. It's visual saturation that makes grasping the entirety of the event almost impossible. That some of the art at this year's event was related to cities was interesting, but that recognition of the event as a city is not something unique to 2010. How Burning Man functions as a city, and how that function evolved, is what makes Burning Man so interesting to me. It's a topic I'll be exploring in much further detail in a future article, and something touched upon in various places, including this piece from the January 2009 issue of Architect Magazine, more recently by Greg Scruggs writing on this year's event for Next American City, the Burning Man organization's own Metropol blog series, and in this blog post from The Architect's Newspaper looking at some of the architecture-related artworks on display this year.
It was an especially interesting year to be at Burning Man because of the theme. Conversations with half-naked people about infill in the camping areas and pedestrian-scaled design were an unexpected departure from the typical desert camp conversation. Whether it's this year's theme that got those conversations going is hard to say. The event itself is becoming a metropolis, and it seems that people are increasingly drawing that conclusion and a connection to the cities they regularly experience. The good thing about this year's Metropolis theme is that the urbanist discourse on Burning Man -- and its impact on actual cities and communities beyond the event -- is likely to continue.
Nate Berg is a contributing editor for Planetizen and freelance journalist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
