ENVISIONING A
COMPASSIONATE SOLUTION
FOR MENTALL ILLNESS AND
THE DRUG ADDICTION
CRISIS HIDING AS
HOMELESSNESS
SOLU T IO NS FOR T HE UN-HOUSED, RESTORING
FU NCT IO NING CO MMU NIT IES A ND IMPROVING QUA LIT Y OF
LIFE FOR A LL
AU THO RED BY S EA N FI T Z GERA LD A ND M ICHAEL
G H IRINGHELLI
CALIFORNIA’S CRISIS
Left up to the powers that be in California, including every Governor over the last 20 years and every politician of the state, the number of people living outdoors is growing. This is not compassion; this is an unmitigated failure.
Despite billions of dollars being spent, and some well-intentioned people along the way trying their very best, a scalable solution has not been presented, and the unhoused are impairing the function of our communities.
Did you know that out of nearly 40 million people living in California, only 0.004% of the population is living unhoused? That means 99.996% of all residents live indoors. Put into actual numbers, 186,000 people are living outdoors in California. This is a solvable figure.
Approximately 70% statewide (130,000) of the unhoused suffer from mental illness, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, or some combination of these three. These folks need very special care. The remaining 56,000 are people who, through unfortunate circumstances, find themselves unhoused. We need to help get all of these unhoused people indoors and back on track with their lives. This is true compassion.
A sense of urgency, bold leadership, and a common-sense plan are needed in Marin County and California.
DOES THIS LOOK LIKE A COMPASSIONATE WAY TO LET PEOPLE LIVE? Those arguing for unmanaged encampments as housing are leading communities and campers into the abyss.
SOURCE: MARIN POINT IN TIME COUNT REPORT
As of Jan 23, 2024 The total persons experiencing
homelessness in Marin was 1,090 of which 72% of
them were unsheltered.
84% of the homeless have no employment. Nor are
they seeking employment.
45% self report a psychiatric or emotional condition
and 41% PTSD but statewide it is reported closer to
70% + for mental health issues. 38% report
drug/alcohol abuse but these figures are much
higher as many don’t admit or report their illicit
addictions.
Keep in mind these are “Self Reported” figures.
Those who are severely mentally ill do not identify
their illness and don’t actually know the reason for
their homelessness.
MARIN COUNTY UNHOUSED
Approximately 1,000 mentally ill and drug addicted people live on the streets in their cars, and tents in Marin county; This segment of the population is creating outsized negative impacts for existing community residents and living in terrible unsanitary conditions themselves. “Problems that remain
persistently insoluble should
always be suspected as questions
being asked in the wrong way.”
- ALAN WATTS
THE HOUSING FIRST IDEOLOGY
Don’t we just need more Housing?
The solution being presented, “housing first,” is an abject failure.
The “Homelessness” problem has been incorrectly characterized as due to the lack of affordable housing when it is in fact driven by mental illness, drug addiction, dislocation from family and community and inability to perform basic life functions (Job, Self care, Obtain shelter, Interpersonal skills).
CA Leadership at all levels would have you believe “affordable” housing is the solution. In Marin county we would need 6,000 units of new housing to achieve 1000 “affordable” units. And you still cannot allocate 100% of those to the homeless as low/moderate income and the workforce citizens require them too.
Even if you could snap your figures and have 1000 low-income units built tomorrow (Ignoring the needs of the functioning community members); how can unhoused manage them with no employment? There are approximately a dozen housing vouchers that become available each year. It would take 75 years at this rate just to get vouchers for them all.
WHAT ELSE GETS IN THE WAY?
NGOS a solution in search of a problem
Just getting people indoors doesn’t solve the underlying problem of their inability to care for themselves. This has been proven by Homeward bounds 30% attrition rate. Their drug addiction and mental illness makes it so they are not able to hold down housing or maintain it without some kind of support, community and purpose/work.
The multi billion-dollar homeless industrial complex is not being incentivized to house people. In fact, there are no outcome related incentives for this group. Other than exceptions like Homeward Bound, their primary purpose is to serve and keep these people alive in a humane way. While noble it means we’re spending billions of dollars to simply keep people stuck.
These people need a variety of support; Social workers dedicated to helping them get proper identification, and using the current system to get food, vocational training, medical treatment, and on a pathway to a meaningful life. They need in many instances, substance abuse treatment. And the vast majority need some kind of mental health treatment or medication and for the severely mentally ill, conservatorship.
Trying to treat this problem town by town is failing; Space and resource restrictions, a diverse set of mental health problems requiring specialized treatment each town doesn’t have on their own and it is cost prohibitive and extremely inefficient. $130,000 was spent per person for temporary tent shelters in San Rafael and another $6,000 per person annually just on city services. You can buy prefab units for under $10,000. These partial fixes don’t make fiscal sense. And as long as it’s permitted to sleep outdoors in our cities with no responsibilities or requirements, the mentally ill and addicts will do so.
THE SOLUTION:
Camp Rescue and Compassion City
A single centralized housing campus with facilities for people with mental illness and or addiction challenges. Right next door, separated but sharing resources is another campus (Camp ground/parking lot and micro homes) for unhoused people who are not mentally ill. These campuses include dormitory style housing, health and human services, cafeteria, transportation, and outdoor space for recreation. The mentally ill or addicted would remain on the campus until they can assimilate back into society.
The people who are not mentally ill, or addicted, will be helped to get back on their feet, with job and vocational training, and housing options.
Each will have an individually tailored rehabilitation and support plan. In all cases the very first effort will be to reunite all people, on both campuses with their families and loved ones.
Step 1. Build Camp Rescue: This will be a protected and centralized place for all tents, cars, motorhomes with shared temporary services like porto potties, showers and cafeteria. Provide: Parking and plug in for cars/RVs, Protect tent campers with giant warehouse tent structures, Allow people to “Come as they are” with their own tent and items that fit in a 10ft by 10 ft space. Create public storage container area for additional belongings. 24/7 Security and basic rules for order and access to a POBOX service and social workers.
Step 2. Emergency order: health and safety crisis exists in CA. Declare emergency and pass an emergency rule that says for next 90 days it is compulsory to sleep in shelter/indoors and at the same time provide transportation to Camp Rescue.
Step 3. Build Compassion City. Add as many pre-fab ADU/Pod homes as needed and build centralized showers/community centers. Transitional housing construction to mirror New Beginnings center. Build the permanent supportive housing for the severely mentally ill and those who require conservatorship.
GOALS OF CAMP RESCUE AND
COMPASSION CITY
1) Centralize services and dramatically reduce cost of housing per person 2) Create a safe place with sanitary conditions, electricity, temp controlled 3) Provide a medical/housing facility equipped to manage the severely mentally ill 4) Relieve the cities in the county of the burden/impacts on people living outdoors 5) Create community and support structure for those who can be rehabilitated 6) Provide temporary transitional housing and permanent affordable housing. 7) Transition plans for all inhabitants. From unsheltered to sheltered, from sheltered to temp housing, from temp to permanent housing and back into the community.
CAMP RESCUE
Transitional Shelter for tents and those sleeping with no protection.
CAMP RESCUE: CARS/MOTORHOMES
COMPASSION CITY: TEMP HOUSING
AND VOCATIONAL CENTER
Compassion City:
Affordable Tiny Homes Village
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR
THOSE SUFFERING SEVERE MENTAL
ILLNESS
ADOPT AN OUTDOOR PERSON
“Be A Positive Sponsor Program”
People from all walks of life, all areas of income, have helped their fellow man, woman, and child through various support initiatives. Out of the 99.996 % ( 250,000) of the residents living indoors in Marin, there is ample opportunity to directly help one or more of the 0.004 (1,000), that are not housed. There are thousands of empty rooms and units available in Marin. Those willing to help could register their room and be matched with a high functioning person in need of transitional housing or integrated housing once ready to move on from compassion city. There is opportunity to help directly financially, to help unite people with their families, or to mentor someone to get their lives back on track. A percentage of the unhoused came to Marin from other states or counties in California. They often want to get back home to their family. There is so much a sponsor can do to help an unhoused person, that will help them get back their lives and have a pathway to a better future. All of the efforts to end homelessness must be centralized in Compassionate/Rescue Cities in every County. Marin can be the model for success.
We can make this happen. Work with us. Let's go - we are ready, our citizens are ready for change and new scalable solutions.
SHA
RE
LINK
TO
SEC
TION
PRIN
T
SEC
TION
DO
WNL
OAD
(DO
CX)
OF
SEC
TION
S
EMA
IL
SEC
TION
COM
PAR
E
VER
SIO
NS
(a)
(b)
Outlook
Re: Citizen's 602 Letter
From Marin Town and Country Club <[email protected]> Date Thu 1/9/2025 5:23 PM
To Lisel Blash <[email protected]>
Cc [email protected] <[email protected]>; Mike Ghiringhelli <[email protected]>; Stephanie Hellman <[email protected]>; Barbara Coler <[email protected]>; Christine Foster <[email protected]> Dear Lisel:
In the event you would like to review simple language:
5.40.030 - Use of streets for storage of vehicles prohibited.
No person who owns or has possession, custody or control of any vehicle shall park or leave the vehicle standing upon any street or alley for more than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours, or for longer than any shorter maximum time indicated on posted signs.
If signs are posted giving notice of such requirement, then for purposes of this section, a vehicle will be deemed to have been parked or left standing for longer than the time allowed if, after the expiration of the designated time period, the vehicle has not been moved to another location at least one hundred (100) feet away; and if, after having been so removed, the vehicle is returned to the original parking space sooner than two (2) hours after that removal.
(Ord. 1781 § 6, 2002; Ord. 835 § 2, 1965: Ord. 670).
If we add simple language to our already pre-existing ordinance, we can avoid a lot of the costs from contractors, civil assistance, storage facilities, high risk exposure to drugs, etc..
Michael Mackintosh
From: Marin Town and Country Club
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 5:18 PM
To: Lisel Blash
Cc: [email protected]; Mike Ghiringhelli; [email protected]; Barbara Coler; Christine Foster Subject: Re: Citizen's 602 Letter
Dear Lisel:
I am including the enclosed email for tonight's public comments on the Anti-camping Ordinance. Fairfax would be well advised to use a Matrix of Proportionality to justify our fair share of campers, relative to the County. This is needed right now before pushed out San Rafael campers arrive at welcoming Fairfax and increase our population. Campers will burn down our Town, before the State gives you a homeless camping grant.
Additionally, we can restrict where the encampment is. Thus, if someone does not want to remain in the safe designated camp, they can move to a different town. We can ill-afford campers in areas of high fire danger using open flame to cook. The campers cannot afford to indemnify the Town should they burn down our families' homes.
I was hoping you would entertain this argument to further our protection of our children's play spaces.
Please do not support redacting our current Park (Anti-Camping) Sunset to Sunrise Ordinance.
Additionally, in reviewing your language, I hope the Town attorney Janet Coleson didn't charge us over $3,000.00? If you review the common language and disposition of vehicles parked/abandoned on our public streets for over 72 hours, we already have in place language to remove, store, fine, and dispose of abandoned property, including property of substantial value.
Reinventing the wheel each time subjects us to liabilities from all the inconsistencies of the language. The Town attorney is burning town money for her own self-enrichment.
Fairfax can do much better.
Michael Mackintosh
From: Marin Town and Country Club
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 12:27 PM
To: Lisel Blash
Subject: Re: Citizen's 602 Letter
Dear Lisel:
(“land, real property, or structures belonging to, or lawfully occupied by another, not open to the general public”).
If we have restrictions, like access hours in the park, (restricting the general public) thus "we should" have standing to implement. To be fair, it could be challenged and would end up being refined in a Declaratory Relief action.
Certainly exceeding the would be plaintiff and advocacy groups wherewithal, where they would not want to risk losing.
The proportionality matrix would also need to include, land mass and population. We are small on both fronts.
Population:
Novato. 51,722. Land area: 27.96 sq mi
San Rafael: 59,555 Land Area: 16.59 sq mi
Fairfax: 7,417. Land Area: 2.20 sq mi
Marin City: 3,419 Land Area: 0.54 sq mi
Novato and San Rafael should house a greater population. Again I think we should all look at a matrix of proportionality. You may want to review Sheetz vs El Dorado for how a Matrix of Proportionality was looked at by the SCOTUS for what is fair. They were dealing with impact fees, same concept when implemented.
Michael Mackintosh
From: Lisel Blash <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2024 5:30 PM
To: Marin Town and Country Club
Subject: RE: Citizen's 602 Letter
Dear Michael,
Thank you for sharing your ideas.
My understanding is that SB 602 applies to private property only (“land, real property, or structures belonging to, or lawfully occupied by another, not open to the general public”). My understanding is that Loper v. Raimondo is about the authority of federal agencies to interpret and apply regulations, not about County or non-profit agencies. However, I am not an attorney. We can certainly ask for clarification in the meeting.
The idea of proportionality is an interesting one. By my estimation, according to proportionality of population, San Rafael, Novato, and tiny Marin City have a greater share of the county’s unhoused than their proportion of the county’s general population, while Fairfax, which is about 3% of the county’s population, only has 2% of Marin’s unhoused. Novato and San Rafael provide nearly all of the shelter beds in Marin.
Indeed, what if every town and county took a proportional amount of the homeless to house? Best,
Lisel Blash
Fairfax Town Council
**The opinions expressed in this email are those of this individual Council Member and are not representative of the entire Council or Town of Fairfax unless otherwise stated.**
From: Marin Town and Country Club <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 11:02 AM
To: Fairfax PoliceChief <[email protected]>
Cc: Heather Abrams <[email protected]>; Lisel Blash <[email protected]>; Barbara Coler <[email protected]>; Stephanie Hellman <[email protected]>; Frank Egger <[email protected]>; [email protected]; todd greenberg <[email protected]>; Kelly Deb London <[email protected]>; Kathy Flores <[email protected]>; Christine Foster <[email protected]>; Mike Ghiringhelli <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Michael Ghiringhelli <[email protected]>; Mark Bell <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Citizen's 602 Letter
Dear Rico:
Thank you for acknowledging receipt.
It is an interesting way to look at this issue. The Council has failed to enforce pre-existing ordinances (which they do not have the authority to pick and choose) possibly in an attempt to support the encampment or possibly fearful of litigation.
602 is a state law. One which can be enforced. 602 supersedes our local ordinances.
The question: does a stakeholder have legal standing to enforce our ordinances when the Council fails to enforce? The Council is merely 5 voices of our approximate 5700 voting voices. Why would not my single voice or the voice of the majority be enforced?
Another thought: If we want to show compassion (for everyone) may I suggest we allocate an area infront of Town Hall for our encampment. We could have an area set aside and require signing up for set periods of time, when space is available. This way we could be a true stepping stone to help campers find more permanent housing. It would also allow us to set our encampment population based on our town's population.
A matrix of proportionality would set what our population should be relative to other towns. This way we could rely on our matrix for a set number of temporary campers. It would also allow us to deny campers if the population exceeded our matrix of proportionality.
Thank you for your considerations.
Michael Mackintosh
From: Fairfax PoliceChief <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2024 7:44 AM
To: Marin Town and Country Club
Cc: [email protected]; Lisel Blash; Barbara Coler; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; todd greenberg; Kelly Deb London; Kathy Flores; Christine Foster Subject: Re: Citizen's 602 Letter
Hello Mr. Mackintosh,
I received your Trespass Letter for review.
Thank you,
Rico Tabaranza | Chief of Police
Fairfax Police Department
144 Bolinas Road Fairfax, CA 94930
415-453-5330 Office
415-457-8769 Fax
fairfaxpd.org
From: Marin Town and Country Club <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2024 7:16 PM
To: Fairfax PoliceChief <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lisel Blash <[email protected]>; Barbara Coler <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; todd greenberg <[email protected]>; Kelly Deb London <[email protected]>; Kathy Flores <[email protected]>; Christine Foster <[email protected]> Subject: Citizen's 602 Letter
Dear Chief Rico:
Attached please find our 602 letter that authorizes you to remove people squatting on our public lands. Anyone with legal standing may file a claim if they disagree with your implementation. This does not mean they will prevail.
I do not feel this puts you or your department at risk, providing we stay within the guidelines of the 602 and preexisting local ordinances unless superseded by the State. Please feel free to have Counsel outside of the Counsel that currently represents our Council review this should you so choose.
If you would like I can also send this to Robert Epstein for his review.
Thank you for your considerations.
Michael Mackintosh
****************************************************
MARIN TOWN & COUNTRY CLUB
P.O. BOX 150870
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915
[email protected]
Chief Rico Tabaranza December 12, 2024
Fairfax Police Department
142 Bolinas Rd
Fairfax, CA 94930
RE: 602 Trespass Letter Authorizing removal of unwanted person(s) Dear Rico:
Please maintain this letter authorizing you, your department and/or assisting mutual aide; to remove any trespassing individual(s) from the public lands of Fairfax, commonly known as Peri Park, the Pavillion, Fairfax Town Park, and adjacent public lands. These public lands of Fairfax include Elsie Ln, School St, and Winnie; the creek adjacent to these properties & all easements that include or border these lands. (APN: 002-114-01, 002-103-01, 002-103-02, 002-103-03, 002-102-01, 002-102-02, 002-102-03, 002-102-06, 002-102-11, and 002-102-12). (Please note these APNs could be out of date as these APNs are kept in house.) Fences do not necessarily illustrate the demarcation of these Fairfax public lands.
This authorization and courtesy shall also be extended to our Fairfax citizens and stakeholders, so that they shall have the same legal rights to request the removal of trespasser(s) and/or squatters on these public lands. Squatters defined as unauthorized persons continually occupying any space in excess of 24 hours and/or depositing and/or controlling material for their sole use.
SB 602 by Sen. Bob Archuleta, D-Cerritos, will take effect Jan. 1, 2024.
Under current law (Penal Code Section 602), property owners who have problems with trespassers can submit a no trespass letter, commonly referred to as a 602 letter, to local law enforcement. These letters, once filed, remain in effect for 30 days, giving law enforcement the mandate to remove trespassers from the designated property.
The newly passed SB 602 modifies this procedure so that property owners will now be able to keep their 602 letters active for up to a year. Additionally, if a property is permanently closed and posted as such, the authorization letter will remain in effect for three years. The legislation also allows property owners to electronically submit their requests.
Page: Two
RE: 602 Trespass Letter Authorizing removal of unwanted person(s) Disposal of abandoned material may be discarded in accordance with current California laws.
Please allow this authorization to annually renew with all newly incorporated language from SB 602 modifications.
Should anything in the above or within SB 602 be found to be illegal and/or unenforceable, the rest of the provisions and authorities shall remain enforceable and shall inure as long as the Citizens & Stakeholders of Fairfax, own this property(s).
Public lands are owned by the public whether gifted, bequeathed, donated, purchased by the public etc..
Therefore, each citizen’s & stakeholder’s voice shall count. The Town Council is a collective body of five such citizen voices and are required to enforce any and all laws/ordinances they are authorized to oversee. The Town Council does not have the subjective authority of choosing which laws to enforce, as that would be “subjective enforcement”. Subjective enforcement is a liability to the Town.
In addition to this 602, we have pre-existing ordinances that have not been followed or enforced as they have been in place to protect our children, public spaces and parks. Please ignore any direction given by Council not to enforce our pre-existing ordinances until State law supersedes our pre-existing ordinances.
Should a right to enforce, as mentioned above, not be timely enforced, it shall not constitute a waiver of these rights and requirements. Therefore, you should be able to move forward compassionately.
Remember, the homeless advocacy groups do not have any authority to enforce or create any ordinance on this subject. This deference was removed with the adjudication of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo .
Thank you
Michael Mackintosh
Citizen and Stakeholder of Fairfax