1 October 29, 2022
Re: Comments - Update on Homelessness Efforts by the City of Goleta (City Council Meeting Nov 1, 2022)
Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for tackling the issue of homelessness in the City of Goleta. A great amount of effort has clearly been made and many resources have been allocated to address this critical issue. I believe society has an obligation to help the homeless population find housing. It is a basic human right and our society must prioritize assisting those in need. In addition, our society has an obligation to take care of those people with severe mental illness by providing much needed medical treatment and temporary asylum in mental health facilities until they are fit to rejoin society and enjoy productive and peaceful lives. Furthermore, I support the wise expenditure of funds to make that goal a reality. I have read the staff report and find it encouraging that real progress is underway to help these people. My hope is that one day I can walk down Hollister Avenue in Old Town and no longer see the same unfortunate souls sleeping on the sidewalks and wandering the street incapacitated by their illness. I encourage the City Council to redouble their efforts in addressing this serious societal issue.
I am concerned however, that the City is not fully addressing the serious issues that we face daily. It begins with what the definition of a homeless person is.
The City, County and State seem to broadly define this term to include every person that is not living under a roof. I believe this is a false definition and one that is causing unmitigated harm to the community and its residents. From my perspective, and this includes many people I talk with on the subject, a homeless person should only include those people who are without housing and who “actively desire” to be housed as well as those unhoused people with severe mental illness. What the definition should not include are people who many call “transients”. Experience shows that the transient population have no desire to be housed and prefer to live in our creeks, on our streets, and in other open spaces as a “chosen lifestyle”. These people typically, but not always, have substance abuse issues. Even the few that would consider staying in a temporary shelter are 2 not allowed entrance as rules require them to be sober, which is in direct conflict with their desired lifestyle.
It is this transient population that live in the San Jose Creek corridor south of US Hwy 101 that, over the past few years, have become a clear and present danger to the residents of the La Goleta Condominium complex and the Dearborn Green Apartments where hundreds of residents reside. You should know that these condominiums and apartments contain a wide demographic of residents ranging from young families with toddlers, to graduate students, to elderly retirees, to single mothers, and all levels of our working class. We are part of Old Town, and most folks don’t have the time in their busy lives to write letters to the city, show up at City Council meetings, or file complaints to the Sheriff’s Department. As you know, Old Town Goleta is officially designated as a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) by the State of California. Therefore, you should not expect throngs of residents showing up at the Council Meetings to demand their problems to be addressed. This simply isn’t like a well-off neighborhood north of Hwy 101 who have the time and resources to make themselves known when they face issues of concern. The City Council needs to be cognizant of this reality and take the extra efforts that are needed on behalf of the residents of this part of town. They need your help.
It is unfortunate that I must remind the City Council once again that our residents still face real life impacts from the transient population who come and go through the San Jose Creek corridor. Some stay for a few nights, others for longer and most return on a continual basis. They mostly do not set up large tent encampments any longer, but rather converge upon the area after dusk. There, they set up camp, light fires, consume their drugs and alcohol, and party well into the early morning hours. They yell and scream obscenities, bang drums, and wake up neighbors with bedrooms that face the creek. By mid-morning they typically depart the area and leave behind large amounts of trash. They are obviously defecating in the creek-bed and leave behind unknown amounts of hazardous materials. San Jose Creek is an environmentally sensitive area, and the City of Goleta has been threatened with citations by the Regional Quality Water Board in the past due to the trash and other materials littering the creek-bed.
Throughout the night and day, they trespass onto our property and steal whatever is left outside (mostly bicycles - even one’s that are locked). They are seen walking through the complex, along Dearborn Place and along Armitos 3 Avenue, peering into cars looking for crimes of opportunity. And yes, there have been far too many cars broken into and valuables stolen. When confronted and asked to leave the property these transients get belligerent and become aggressive towards the resident brave enough to confront them. There’s even one transient that frequently returns to the area who has a Nazi swastika tattooed on his forehead. He too is aggressive when confronted and terrifies many of the residents.
The residents should not have to fear that some unhinged person will suddenly pop up out of the creek bed to potentially do them or their child harm. Nor should we have to put up with our property being scoped out by these transients for crimes of opportunity. Let me be clear, San Jose Creek is literally within 100 feet of peoples’ bedroom windows. It isn’t like an encampment located far away along the railroad tracks. This is much too close for comfort, and I see no reason why a transient population is allowed to camp in the San Jose creek corridor day or night.
And yet, that is not our greatest fear. Being so close to the creek, we fear that these camps will create an out-of-control fire that will cause great harm to ourselves and our homes. Everyone in this town knows how destructive an out- of-control fire can be to housing and lives. We’ve had several small fires caused by transient camps in the past and luckily the weather conditions favored the firefighters that responded. And kudos to our firefighters! To date, they are the only public agency that we truly can count on and we are grateful to them for their service. Unfortunately, on Sunday October 16, 2022, at 3:30 in the afternoon, a very large fire erupted at a transient camp within 100 feet of our homes. Flames rose so high that it was visible from Fire Station #12 across Hwy 101 on Calle Real. We were lucky, again, as the weather conditions did not blow the embers towards our homes.
Calling the Sheriff Department usually has no effect since the transient causing the disturbance has typically left the property by the time the unit arrives. And we’ve been told that the Sheriff’s Department refuses to patrol the San Jose Creek corridor. We really believe a daily patrol from the Hollister Avenue bridge to the Hwy 101 underpass would greatly reduce the number of transients that camp in that corridor. This lack of support from the Sheriff’s Department greatly disappoints the residents. Only once have we had any success and that was 4 when a very large encampment was set up in the creek and was occupied 24/7.
As noted above, this corridor is now mostly a nightly use area with the population varying day-to-day and week-to-week. Still, this remains a big problem.
I simply must ask: Why are the residents in Old Town not being provided basic public safety protections for themselves, their property, and their homes? I doubt that this problem would continue unabated if it were located in a neighborhood north of Hwy 101. So please, do something to help us. Patrol the creek corridor, remove the transients, and clean up the trash and hazardous materials. Please help keep our neighborhood safe. Is that too much to ask these days?
Which brings me back to the report that your Council is being briefed upon tonight. I think the Mission Statement for helping the homeless and severely mentally ill people on the streets is one this Council should be proud of. But I disagree that including the transient population into this Mission Statement is a valid approach. Transients are not homeless by any reasonable definition. I would argue to you that this transient population is the cause of much of the problems that this Council hears about from its constituents. This is the group of people that trash our neighborhoods and creeks, that steal from our residents, and that start dangerous fires which threaten people’s lives and homes.
Remember, the transient population has no desire to seek housing and that’s the primary goal that the City Council is trying to address tonight. That leaves the question of the transient population and their significant impacts to the city completely unaddressed.
I recommend that the City Council take a bifurcated approach and direct staff to develop a different report with a different Mission Statement that can effectively address the transient population problems in our city. There are laws for trespassing. Enforce them. There are laws for leaving large piles of garbage and hazardous materials in creeks, along roadways, and on the streets (massive littering). Enforce them. There are laws for stealing bicycles, stealing shopping carts, and breaking into cars and stealing people’s property. Enforce them. Have staff develop a report that provides the City Council a realistic approach for dealing with the actual problems this transient population is having on our city.
5 These two reports – each with their own specific Mission Statement - will then complement one another and will have the wholistic effect of addressing the entirety of the problems impacting the city from the issues before the City Council tonight.
We should have the willpower as a city to address both the homeless problem and the transient problem.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Goldman
Property Owner – Dearborn Place
Comments Re: Agenda Item “C.1 22-462 Update on Homeless Effort by the City of Goleta.” Page - 1 C. DAVE GAUGHEN
7456 Evergreen Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Telephone: (805) 985 – 7229
Email: [email protected]
November 01, 2022
To: The Mayor and Council Members
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
Subj: Please Do Not Authorize $250K to City Net: Rath er re-Focus the Continuation of this Work to In- House City Staff, Volunteers, Non-Profits, etc.: Agenda Item “C.1 22-462 Update on Homeless Effort by the City of Goleta,” meeting date November 01, 2022
Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members:
Currently, I am at the initial stage of reviewing this body of work and simply desire to decrease the City’s outsourcing of funds especially in light of the highly unfavorable Measure B2022 on the upcoming General Election Ballot.
Overall, City aesthetics have dramatically improved most likely as a result of this effort (good job!).
Under the heading ALTERNATIVES states, “Council could choose not to add additional funding to the City Net contract, and the contract would run out of funding in December, 2022. This would curtail the City’s ability to provide outreach and bridge housing to people experiencing homelessness for the remainder of the fiscal year.” Nevertheless, 1) In-House City Staff, Volunteers, Non-Profits, etc. may in fact be acceptable options for community outreach, and 2) Continuing to populate the Safe Parking Program could assist with bridging gaps in providing shelter to people experiencing homelessness, with or without an expansion to this program (if needed) including the purchase of used vehicles (if required).
R e s p e c t f u l l y ,
C. Dave Gaughen