HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2024 Item 5b, Clifton
AM
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Letter for planning commission meeting 5/8/2024; agenda item 5b
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.
To whom it concerns:
I am writing this letter to join my voice with my neighbors stating that we do not want the Welcome Home
Village to be built at its proposed location on Johnson Avenue. The project location was decided without consulting
residents in the neighborhood, and since residents of the neighborhood so overwhelmingly oppose the location of this
project, a new location must be chosen.
To be clear, we are not opposed to the project, only its location. Many of us have contributed time and
resources to help the homeless population in the city and wish to see effective solutions put in place. We believe that a
solution can be worked out – in consultation with the community – which will please all parties involved.
The Welcome Home Village webpage on the website for the County suggests that similar programs have not
impacted neighborhoods negatively. Of the three examples given, however, the oldest – the Dignity Moves Project in
Santa Barbara – has not been in operation for even two years. This is not to say that the model itself will not prove
successful for those in need, but it is too soon to really determine the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. What’s
more, Dignity Moves is placed in the downtown, commercial area – not in a residential neighborhood. Links for the
second example in Isla Vista lead to two articles. The first is from 2020 and speaks of the project in the future tense.
The second article is from 2021 and refers to a six-month project in Isla Vista which had already ended (in this case, the
homes being relocated to Lompoc). The Santa Barbara County website refers to another Good Samaritan project –
Hedges of Hope. An article about Hedges of Hope (found at www.independent.com/2022/02/09/some-good-and-some-
bad-for-santa-barbara-homeless-issues) refers to another Housing Authority project in Santa Maria:
\[Mayor\] Patino cited another Housing Authority project that’s been the site of gun violence and escalating
gang activity. Ten months ago, she said the Housing Authority pledged to fix things; the problem, she said, has only
gotten worse. “I don’t want to wait for someone to get shot,” she exclaimed. “What do I say? ‘I’m sorry?’” Patino
supported that other project when it first went to the Santa Maria council for approval. “I feel like I was lied to and
then in turn I lied to residents,” she said.
Supervisors expressed surprise bordering on shock at Patino’s statements; they’d been assured by city
administrators that all the concerns had been resolved.
Though Santa Maria struggles with its own unique problems, the article points to a real concern: the Welcome
Home Village could in fact negatively affect the neighborhood. Furthermore, if it does, it is virtually guaranteed that a
quick and effective solution will be hard to come by – just as solutions to the dangerous camping conditions along the
Bob Jones Trail have been elusive.
1
The use of pallet homes and tiny homes has been touted as a “proven model,” but the fact is that this model is
relatively new. Beyond San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties, this model has only been utilized on a wider scale in
the last few years. It will take time to see to what degree these kinds of shelters impact surrounding neighborhoods.
Beyond crime and other disturbances, other issues (such as parking) have not been addressed. The website for the
Welcome Home Village simply states that residents will be “encouraged to use alternate forms of transportation.”
Beyond that, it states that the County is “actively working on a plan.” This is not encouraging for residents who are well
aware that this would likely be a problem.
As stated before, the residents of this neighborhood want to support programs that will help homeless people
find permanent housing. However, a residential neighborhood should not be utilized to essentially carry out an
experiment. There are many children who live in this neighborhood, including many who walk to and from the high
school. Alternatives that are not situated in residential neighborhoods ought to be utilized, even if there are some
inconveniences. While it’s understood that the residents at the Welcome Home Shelter will benefit from a proximity to
County services, it would seem a much better solution to provide transportation for them to these services from a safer
location. If, after some years of proven success (such as evidence of low police calls), it seems prudent to build a shelter
in a residential neighborhood, neighbors can be more reasonably assured that their property and livelihoods will not be
negatively affected.
Finally, understand that the residents in this neighborhood already have very little trust for those who are
behind this project, considering that we were not even consulted before plans were drawn up, and that we are united
and resolved to utilize every legitimate means at our disposal to fight this project and to ensure that it does not go
forward at this location.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Clifton
2