The flaw in "Housing First," which IS the recognized policy and orthodoxy among government and academic policy analysts and prescribers, is that it is based on getting people housed first and dealing with their problems later. Makes some sense in principle, if those problems in fact become addressed. In practice, however, this repeats the failed experience of "urban renewal" and housing projects in the 1960s, which became crime- and drug-infested warehouses for otherwise vulnerable people, as here now. And what logic, or common sense, or wisdom gained from experience, lumps this disparate group of families, drug users, and prostitutes together based on a point system that ignores compatibility and curative factors? The illusion of "equality" and "equal protection" ignores that one size does not fit all, without consideration of disparate needs and disparate impacts.
Good reporting on a difficult subject that is now Sebastopol-centric.
Sounds like the genie can't be put back in the bottle. Seems this all could have been avoided had those involved in approving the project read the Housing First policies that had to be adhered to. Those policies seem to be a recipe for disaster. Sad to say that it is policies like that, and a total lack of common sense that are the reason we have a very polarized country and the current leadership in the White House. Exercising empathy and compassion to those that are struggling makes total sense. What does not make sense is not supporting them in such a way that they can become mentally healthy enough to be given such wide breadth of autonomy in making decisions that impact the other residents and the community at large.
Good article explaining the nuances of dealing with an intractable problem in our society. Everyone, police, Burbank, WCCS, tenants and the community at large, needs to have patience and show restraint in trying to make the Housing First strategy work. It will always be uneven and have problems, but even if it only works for some, it's the best until something better comes along.
Anyone really surprised here?!! I know I’m not. Most bureaucratic ideas are idealistic & void of any common sense. Here’s another idea…how about stop enabling and start requiring these chosen few tenants to be accountable for bad behavior. How about form a tenant/peers committee to help the apparently absent management in understanding & enforcing set rules? Yes, I said rules…those things we all have to abide by or suffer dire consequences. It’s called life. In this particular case..you’re given x amount of chances and subsequently voted out of the program (off the island?) if you can’t or won’t comply.
Leaving those that are trying to successfully move forward in a safe & positive environment. Shoot..they even make TV shows about this stuff! What is it…if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem? Same principle here.
Too simple for the bureaucrats & dreamers I’m guessing, as feelings are probably going to get hurt in this scenario.
I would propose enforcing the terms of the lease sign with burbank housing. The terms shown in the article clearly state drug use, crime, disruptive behavior is grounds for termination of lease and eviction. The first priority is to protect the folks living by the rules and attempting to pull the live together. We should also be concerned for general welfare those businesses near by and their customers. Sorry, "don't let the inmates run the aslum".
The article starts with a big picture of supervisor hopkins front and center taking credit for this operation. Bring her in to solve the problem her actions created.
I'm going to reach out to Lynda. As I said in the article, I believe the people who created and supported Elderberry Commons (this includes a friend of mine) did it with the best of intentions and with the belief that it would be well-run. For me, the problem is the enabling and lack of personal accountability inherent in the "Housing First" philosophy.
I would say there is 2 "agreements" in place. One, the housing first philosophy that is pretty much a reactionary approach that waits for the person to ask for assistance. The second is the rental agreement with burbank housing that requires some level of compliance with the rules. I hope the second agreement could be used which is for everyone's benefit.
I'm not legal expert but it would seem burbank and other group managing the property could be held liable for not enforcing the terms of the lease. By not enforcing the terms, the other tenants aren't able to get the benefits of the lease signed. And likewise if the business level of the nearby businesses is impacted they would have a claim. One a larger note if an innocent person is hurt by another tenant who is knowingly violating the rules wouldn't management be personally liable?
Years ago when Elderberry Commons was slouching toward actuality the county paid some lip service about actually paying the city for police and fire service to the Elderberry site. The City of Sebastopol should be charging for those services on a per call basis. If the city bills on a flat rate the county will have the police delivering pizzas.
I agree with the majority of comments here. Give them six months to a year to work out the challenges. Then evaluate. Meanwhile, a joint meeting between SPD, Burbank Housing and WCCS could yield results.
Perhaps I did, AS A CHILD, and worse. But I don't waste my time, my story or my wisdom on people like you and Michael Zeigler. NOTHING IN YOUR ARTICLE contains an ounce of problem solving.
I am so done with this small town rag. Enjoy your little bubble, people.
My understanding is that veterans who legally use cannabis to treat PTSD acquired while defending our country are prohibited from doing so at facilities run by Burbank Housing. Ironically the real Luther Burbank was a big fan of Cannabis and cultivated it, it was federally legal at the time.
1) there will always be those who are on the outer edge (or beyond) of civil functionality 2) it is incumbent upon the civil society to care for those on the outer edge or beyond, 3) I believe our elected leaders (State, County and Sebastopol) have done their best to meet the needs of those who are "dysfunctional", (I have not heard any alternate approaches that sway me), 4) I believe a "break-in" period, as in most ventures, is to be expected - and Elderberry Commons has been open only ~ 2 months. So let's stand back and let well intentioned people work things out. I sure as hell would not want any one of their jobs! Kudos to them.
The flaw in "Housing First," which IS the recognized policy and orthodoxy among government and academic policy analysts and prescribers, is that it is based on getting people housed first and dealing with their problems later. Makes some sense in principle, if those problems in fact become addressed. In practice, however, this repeats the failed experience of "urban renewal" and housing projects in the 1960s, which became crime- and drug-infested warehouses for otherwise vulnerable people, as here now. And what logic, or common sense, or wisdom gained from experience, lumps this disparate group of families, drug users, and prostitutes together based on a point system that ignores compatibility and curative factors? The illusion of "equality" and "equal protection" ignores that one size does not fit all, without consideration of disparate needs and disparate impacts.
Good reporting on a difficult subject that is now Sebastopol-centric.
Nice historical context, Arthur. Thanks.
Excellent resourceful and valuable reporting. Well done.
Agree!
Sounds like the genie can't be put back in the bottle. Seems this all could have been avoided had those involved in approving the project read the Housing First policies that had to be adhered to. Those policies seem to be a recipe for disaster. Sad to say that it is policies like that, and a total lack of common sense that are the reason we have a very polarized country and the current leadership in the White House. Exercising empathy and compassion to those that are struggling makes total sense. What does not make sense is not supporting them in such a way that they can become mentally healthy enough to be given such wide breadth of autonomy in making decisions that impact the other residents and the community at large.
These two articles made me a paid subscriber. Excellent reporting, thank you Laura.
Thank you for becoming a paid subscriber! That's how we keep going.
Good article explaining the nuances of dealing with an intractable problem in our society. Everyone, police, Burbank, WCCS, tenants and the community at large, needs to have patience and show restraint in trying to make the Housing First strategy work. It will always be uneven and have problems, but even if it only works for some, it's the best until something better comes along.
Anyone really surprised here?!! I know I’m not. Most bureaucratic ideas are idealistic & void of any common sense. Here’s another idea…how about stop enabling and start requiring these chosen few tenants to be accountable for bad behavior. How about form a tenant/peers committee to help the apparently absent management in understanding & enforcing set rules? Yes, I said rules…those things we all have to abide by or suffer dire consequences. It’s called life. In this particular case..you’re given x amount of chances and subsequently voted out of the program (off the island?) if you can’t or won’t comply.
Leaving those that are trying to successfully move forward in a safe & positive environment. Shoot..they even make TV shows about this stuff! What is it…if you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem? Same principle here.
Too simple for the bureaucrats & dreamers I’m guessing, as feelings are probably going to get hurt in this scenario.
I would propose enforcing the terms of the lease sign with burbank housing. The terms shown in the article clearly state drug use, crime, disruptive behavior is grounds for termination of lease and eviction. The first priority is to protect the folks living by the rules and attempting to pull the live together. We should also be concerned for general welfare those businesses near by and their customers. Sorry, "don't let the inmates run the aslum".
The article starts with a big picture of supervisor hopkins front and center taking credit for this operation. Bring her in to solve the problem her actions created.
I'm going to reach out to Lynda. As I said in the article, I believe the people who created and supported Elderberry Commons (this includes a friend of mine) did it with the best of intentions and with the belief that it would be well-run. For me, the problem is the enabling and lack of personal accountability inherent in the "Housing First" philosophy.
Thanks for reaching out to supervisor hopkins!
I would say there is 2 "agreements" in place. One, the housing first philosophy that is pretty much a reactionary approach that waits for the person to ask for assistance. The second is the rental agreement with burbank housing that requires some level of compliance with the rules. I hope the second agreement could be used which is for everyone's benefit.
I'm not legal expert but it would seem burbank and other group managing the property could be held liable for not enforcing the terms of the lease. By not enforcing the terms, the other tenants aren't able to get the benefits of the lease signed. And likewise if the business level of the nearby businesses is impacted they would have a claim. One a larger note if an innocent person is hurt by another tenant who is knowingly violating the rules wouldn't management be personally liable?
Years ago when Elderberry Commons was slouching toward actuality the county paid some lip service about actually paying the city for police and fire service to the Elderberry site. The City of Sebastopol should be charging for those services on a per call basis. If the city bills on a flat rate the county will have the police delivering pizzas.
I agree with the majority of comments here. Give them six months to a year to work out the challenges. Then evaluate. Meanwhile, a joint meeting between SPD, Burbank Housing and WCCS could yield results.
So, uh, six months to a year of tweaking and prostitution? Would you want to live with that?
So what do you propose?
Two things: 1) You aren’t a journalist, Laura. You’re a hack who is barfing your bias all over a paid subscriber.
2) Your white privileged life and lack of understanding of the struggles outlined in your articles is on full display.
Nice. But you didn’t answer my question: Would you want to live with that?
Perhaps I did, AS A CHILD, and worse. But I don't waste my time, my story or my wisdom on people like you and Michael Zeigler. NOTHING IN YOUR ARTICLE contains an ounce of problem solving.
I am so done with this small town rag. Enjoy your little bubble, people.
BYE! 👋
Wait, what? $1900 for a one room studio apt. for the homeless? What homeless person can afford that?
Tenants by a portion of their income and remainder is paid by the state.
So, just to be clear, “State money” is that big check I wrote on April 15 to the Governor?
You know, I’m not really sure which state: county, state, fed? I will clarify that.
I suspect the businesses around the place don't appreciate it either and I would be concerned if I patronized those businesses.
« Homelessness is the result of a multitude of factors and some of which are the result of many broken systems in our society«
The USA isn’t a first world country, for the common person.
Thanks for telling about the local issues.
My understanding is that veterans who legally use cannabis to treat PTSD acquired while defending our country are prohibited from doing so at facilities run by Burbank Housing. Ironically the real Luther Burbank was a big fan of Cannabis and cultivated it, it was federally legal at the time.
1) there will always be those who are on the outer edge (or beyond) of civil functionality 2) it is incumbent upon the civil society to care for those on the outer edge or beyond, 3) I believe our elected leaders (State, County and Sebastopol) have done their best to meet the needs of those who are "dysfunctional", (I have not heard any alternate approaches that sway me), 4) I believe a "break-in" period, as in most ventures, is to be expected - and Elderberry Commons has been open only ~ 2 months. So let's stand back and let well intentioned people work things out. I sure as hell would not want any one of their jobs! Kudos to them.