Written Communications
Item 9.2 – Rodriguez
Received 4/ 23/ 2024
From: juan rodriguez <
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11: 24 AM
To: CityClerk < CityClerk@chulavistaca. gov>; John McCann < jmccann@chulavistaca. gov>; Council District 1 < District1@chulavistaca. gov>; Jose Preciado < jpreciado@chulavistaca. gov>; Alonso Gonzalez agonzalez@chulavistaca. gov>; Council District 4 < District4@chulavistaca. gov>; Marco Verdugo MVerdugo@chulavistaca. gov>
Cc:
Subject: OPPOSE Item 9. 2 for the Unsheltered Policy
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASEREPORTSUSPICIOUSEMAILSBYUSING THEPHISH ALERTREPORTBUTTON or to reportphishing@chulavistaca. gov
I am opposed to the adoption of an ordinance that requires organizations trying to serve the homeless with outreach and services to pay to play in Chula Vista by requiring any organization helping homeless to register and pay a fee. I am opposed to an ordinance that equates those who are homeless to being criminals and not worthy of ass istance.
It’s hard enough to do this work and serve those that others would rather throw away. Your efforts only add to cost, bureaucracy, and time to serving the homeless. You are receiving State, County and Federal dollars not just your own local tax dollars to address these issues so why doesn’t Chula Vista recognize that homelessness is a regional issue and sometimes when you take dollars from others you have to play with others.
You lay out operational standards but who is to decide what is an adverse impact or activities that jeopardize or endanger public health and safety. There is nothing there with no definition or measurement. That could be perceived as discriminatory without laying out the rules that people have to follow. You are just deciding when or who is meeting these standards with no definitions.
You’re requiring a criminal background check for what purpose? It doesn’t say. So, you can play big brother, you can discriminate and provide no services to them. What if it’s a shop lifting offense from 5 years ago versus an assault last year? There’s no distinction and there’s reasoning as to what the purpose is. This is a violation of fair housing laws. Looking at criminal history this way disparately impacts the homeless from trying to find housing and puts up barriers to housing.
Are you serving the homeless or just protecting your resources and sending them somewhere else?
1. 1.Staff Report - Adding CVMC 5.14 Service Providers - 24- 0121. pdf
2. 2.Ordinance Adding Chapter 5.14, Service Providers. pdf
3. 3.Resolution - Amending Master Fee Schedule Chapter 4.pdf
4. 4.Attachment 1 to Staff Report and Exhibit 1 to Resolution - Amendment to Master Fee Schedule Chapter 4.pdf
5. 5.Attachment 2 - Permit Cost Analysis. pdf
Youdon't oftenget emailfrom Learnwhythisisimportant