K Street Pedestrian Mall Renovation

[ozone]

wburg I guess I don't know what you are talking about. I'm not talking about just inexpensive stores but a 'type' of dirty run-down businesses that caters almost exclusively to the lower socioeconomic levels. Where do you find those in Midtown? If they do exist they are certainly not concentrated as they are around K Steet. There's most definitely more downtown than you listed. What about across from the Mexican consulate on J Street?

I always hear people make the argument that we need the "flop houses" so folks won't be sleeping on the street but I don't believe it. Its a reverse logic to me.

As for city hall being a willing partner..of course, but who really runs the city? From my observations city hall is pretty much is the 'dog on a leash'. You know it's like when I heard a lot of people blame city hall for the Midtown Traffic Calming Project ...when in fact it was the public (a large and orgainzed group the Midtown residents) which went to the city asking for it. By the way, as it turns out none of the hysterical fears about the traffic calming project causing mayhem came to fruition.

[wburg]

What "types" of businesses are you referring to, ozone? Generally, the "poverty pimps" that make their money off the poor are check cashing stores, pawn shops, rent-to-own stores and liquor stores. Three out of four are found downtown, but they are found throughout midtown.

Along the block you mentioned are a Subway, a cell phone store, a legal bookstore, a convenience store that sells vitamins and supplements, some sort of legal-advice place for immigrants, a senior center, an art gallery, a dentist, Ricci's Restaurant (closed) and a Chinese restaurant, Jade Garden. Which portions of this block, in your mind, are the problem areas?

About "flop houses" (aka SRO hotels): the idea is not to identically duplicate a dirty, run-down building but to provide housing that is affordable to folks on the next-to-bottom rung of income, people on SSI or social security. If there is not enough of this sort of housing, more people will end up sleeping on the streets: if there is more of this sort of housing, fewer people have to sleep on the streets. I'm not sure how that logic is "reversed"; could you explain to me how my thinking is backwards?

[wburg]

Went and checked, the other businesses include a bail bondsman and a Pakistani restaurant, plus apparently there's a second art gallery going in.

[ozone]

Opps. Well maybe I'm just so turned off by the physical appearance of the stores that I just assume they are "poverty pimps" (love that term). I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with naming these buisness off. It doesn't mean they don't cater to the poor and/or tasteless. But come now you know there are more down-at-heel shops in the K Street area than any place in Midtown.

As far as flophouses, SRO's, missions, etc.. are concerned- I just think the more of them you have -the more homeless/drug addicts you'll have around. I can't believe that liberal me is saying this but I've talked to enough homeless to know that many come to Sacramento because of the available handouts & cheap digs. I mean they aren't coming to Sacramento because they landed a great job now are they? I have known enough homeless people and in fact come in contact with them every day- where I work and live. Most homeless people have 'burned a lot of bridges' to get where they are. Many of them are not nice people. They are scam artists who became slaves to drugs and alcohol and turned down help so many times in the past that they are at the point of no return. What do we do? Well start by not feeling sorry for them and making it "easy" to be homeless. Every city in the world has homeless and beggers but here in America they seem more agressive and rude. What gives them the right to sleep on a public sidewalk or in a public park? That sounds cruel but that's how I feel.

[wburg]

Perhaps a point of concern is the difference between SROs and "missions." SRO housing is not free, it costs money like any other rental housing, and the people who live there are not homeless: it is permanent, month-to-month housing. There are no free overnight shelters in the downtown area, so the homeless obviously aren't here for the free housing.

I would take serious issue with the idea that it is "easy" to be homeless. Even in a place with a relatively mild climate, being homeless is generally a fearful, dirty, dangerous existence. If you have mental health problems, physical problems, or substance abuse problems, being homeless will make them worse. Trying to deal with that sort of problem takes a back seat to the basic trouble of survival: eating, finding a place to sleep, not getting beaten up and not freezing to death. People get stuck in the life not because it is easy but because it is a trap, one that becomes harder to escape the longer you are stuck in it.

You are correct in that the problem isn't solved by people feeling sorry for them: it is solved by providing routes out of chronic homelessness, treating the ones in the greatest need, starting with providing housing and following up with case management. This "housing first" approach has met with success in cities like New York and Portland, and is part of a new decade-long plan here in Sacramento. We'll see how it turns out, but the general idea is to turn about a thousand homeless people into a thousand housed people--actually solving the problem, not shuffling it around.

Oh yeah, about the 700/800 block of J Street you mentioned: Three guesses who owns a major portion of the block?

[ozone]

Sorry about my rant. I'm a little agro from 1. Missing my train by a millisecond 2. being verbally assaulted by a homeless guy and 3. 2 Rock Stars and 3 cups of coffee.

I wonder if Mo does own that block. I would really like to know what exactly what he does own downtown.

[wburg]

ozone: He doesn't own all of it, but he is either a partner with those who do or he owns some parts of it.

Sorry about my rant too...I just know far too much about that particular subject. And yeah, it's true, homelessness just plain doesn't bring out the best in people, which is part of why it's a problem that should be addressed with what seems to me to be an obvious solution: housing.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by wburg

The hundreds of businesses included many sorts of businesses, and the redevelopment area went from I Street to R Street, from the waterfront to 8th Street/10th Street. The residents of the old waterfront flophouses moved into the old "upscale" hotels (believe it or not, the Marshall and the Berry used to be fancy hotels.)

regarding the Marshall and Berry...

In a dollar bin at a used bookstore I found this neat Sacramento Chamber of Commerce brochure from the early 50's called "Here's Your Sacramento Memo". It was what the Chamber mailed to people who wrote for information about Sacramento.

The brochure listed and described eleven recommended Sacramento hotels; ten Downtown, plus the El Rancho in West Sac. The Berry at 8th and L was recommended but Marshall wasn't on the list.

Other recommended hotels were the Californian at 8th and I, Clunie at 8th and K, Mark Twain at 13th and I, and, of course, the Senator at 12th and L.

Here's what the brochure said about the Berry, circa 1951:

BERRY HOTEL, 8th and L Streets. 110 rooms. Convenient downtown location with coffee shop, cocktail bar, circulating ice water in all rooms; free overnight parking; partially air cooled; conference room available.

Rates: Single, $3.75 and $4.00; Double, $5.00 and $6.00; Twin, $6.00 and $7.00; 3 to room $7.00. Rollaway, $1.50 extra. All rooms have tub and shower or shower. Quentin Lacy, Manager.

The Senator and Sacramento had the highest rates downtown, ranging from $5 to $10 for standard rooms, and suites for $15-18.

[BrianSac]

City OKs deal to renovate old hotel
City plans to forgive $1 million in loan payments, interest.
By Terri Hardy - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, June 29, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B4

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0) | Digg it | del.icio.us

The city of Sacramento is giving a development team $5 million to take over and renovate the downtown residential Berry Hotel -- and forgive the current owners $1 million in loan payments and interest owed the city.

Details of the project were approved at Tuesday's Sacramento City Council meeting, but one crucial piece of the financial puzzle wasn't mentioned:

The deal also requires the development team to pay downtown landowner Moe Mohanna $1 million for his option on the aging six-story hotel at L and Eighth streets, next to the Greyhound bus station.


It's a sensitive subject that's caused discomfort for the city and been a hot topic among civic leaders. In another downtown issue, the city is suing Mohanna and his development team to force them to move forward with a land swap that will allow the transformation of K Street's most blighted blocks.

Mohanna doesn't like the land swap deal -- seen as necessary to develop the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street -- and has vowed to spend millions to fight the city.

Jim Hare, assistant director of housing policy and development for the redevelopment agency, said city officials mulled over the Mohanna payment before deciding to move forward.

"We could have thrown the baby out with the bath water and not gone forward, but we didn't think that was the best thing to do," he said.

Robert Waste, a public policy professor at California State University, Sacramento, said creating quality housing for low-income residents was the key point. "It's proof of good policy when you hold your nose and do the right thing, even if a real troublemaker benefits," he said.

To transform the 115-unit Berry Hotel into 100 apartments, each with a kitchenette and bathroom for very low-income residents, Trinity Housing Foundation and developer A.F. Evans aim to capture $8.9 million in tax credits from the state.

Tenant rents and proceeds from the commercial space on the ground floor of the building will be funneled into operating the Berry.

Hare said the city likes that the developers are promising to put access to social services on site, a provision that usually results in a well-run facility.

"The current owner doesn't have the resources to manage the property," Hare said. "This new plan is going to make all the difference."

Owners Mohammed A. and Gul Nusrean Khan received a $935,720 home loan from the city in 1994 to rehab the hotel. According to city documents, they have lagged in paying back the principal and interest, and under the deal, the amount they owe will be forgiven.

City officials say A.F. Evans' property management arm has a good track record monitoring low-income properties, including the Ping Yuen housing development downtown.

The council on Tuesday unanimously approved the project. Mayor Heather Fargo had stepped away from the dais and did not vote.

However, two councilwomen expressed concerns about A.F. Evans. Lauren Hammond said the city has been in protracted negotiations with the firm about its proposal to build a 100-unit housing development on Broadway and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Oak Park.

"Is this what's going to happen" with the Berry, she asked. "Is this going to be something that's dragged out?"

At the meeting, Hare said that the Oak Park project, which includes both rental and for-sale homes, is more complicated than the Hotel Berry plan.

Craig Adelman, director of affordable housing for A.F. Evans, told Hammond, "Frankly, we share your frustration. We aren't there yet on what we think costs are and what city staff thinks costs are. We're still trying to reach an agreement."

A.F. Evans also is proposing 140 low-income housing units at Florin Road and 29th Street in Meadowview. Residents have complained that another 700 low-income housing units are across the street, and that the project will lower property values.

City Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell, who represents that area, said at the meeting, "I'm not happy with that project, I just want you to know, and neither is my community."

Adelman did not respond to Pannell at the meeting and did not return calls for comment.

John Foley, executive director of Sacramento Self Help Housing, said even though there appeared to be questions about the development team, his organization supports the project, especially the on-site social services.

"There aren't enough of these services for residents," Foley said. "This is a positive answer for a need for services."

Last year, the city approved a budget of $5 million for preservation of the city's residential hotels and $10 million for construction of replacement units. The city put out a request for applications for the projects and the Trinity-A.F. Evans proposal has been the only response.

Redevelopment law requires the city to replace the 15 hotel rooms that would be lost as a result of the Berry remodel. City officials said units planned in the Globe Mills project in Alkali Flat would meet that requirement.

[wburg]

It does sting a bit that "Mo" is making money off the Berry sale, but at least it is getting done.

philip: I love that kind of old Sacramento ephemera--I pick it up wherever I find it. It's interesting reading about how people perceived Sacramento at various points in the past--we've always been fairly bubbly about our future, and a bit apologetic about our present.

The Marshall's glory days were probably back before it was renamed: it was originally known as the Hotel Clayton, named after Dr. Marion Clayton, whose "Pacific Water Cure" sanitarium and clinic were located on the site in the1870s. His daughter paid for the hotel's construction and named it after her parents. Mrs. Sarah Clayton, Marion's wife, helped found the county hospital, relocating it from Tenth and L to where UCDMC is now.

[rtgeisreit]

By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, June 30, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1

* * *

Hooking up: One of the area's most established development firms could be partnering with a newcomer.

Word on the street is that David S. Taylor Interests, longtime builder of high-rises, is looking to team up with Trancas Ventures, a St. Helena-based investment firm with big plans for the K Street Mall.

"We've had some discussions with (Trancas execs) David Troppy and Jim Brennan," confirms Elle Warner, a Taylor VP.

But she's not providing details on what projects might be pursued jointly.

The companies are logical partners. Taylor is building a cabaret and restaurant project on the southeast corner of 10th and K streets, and is exploring a condo project on the same block. Trancas has nearly completed converting a building at the 10th and K intersection's northeast corner into office condos and reportedly has acquired several other K Street sites.

Taylor was interested in developing all four corners of 10th and K when the city sought proposals for the key intersection a couple of years ago, according to Warner.

"We've never really let go of that (ambition)," she says of the company's interest in making a bold statement in the area. "What we can do together (with Trancas) is get close to where we had previously hoped to be."

* * *

[ozone]

Marcos Bretón: A poke in the eye from Moe
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Sunday, July 1, 2007

Much of the K Street Mall is an eyesore, a string of blighted buildings and empty lots that smear renewal efforts in other parts of downtown Sacramento.

The 700 and 800 blocks of K Street are the worst, the focus of a lawsuit between the city of Sacramento and a man known for lovely manners and obstructionist tendencies.

Moe Mohanna is an Iranian-born gentleman whose Western Management Company on Ninth Street controls large swaths of K Street -- land the city wants. The city wants high-end retail in a row of faded storefronts in the 700 block. It was prepared to execute a trade with Mohanna that would have left him in control of the 800 block in exchange for giving up his properties in the 700 block. Roughly $24 million in city funds are invested in this effort. Mohanna had agreed to the deal but balked at the 11th hour.

"It appears I'm standing in the way," Mohanna said in an interview last week. [No sh't] The city sued Mohanna. The bet here is that an eminent domain fight will soon follow, while K Street remains a pit.

"I think this is a major disappointing turn of events for Sacramento," said Mike Heller, whose J Street building houses Mikuni and PF Chang's.

David Taylor, who built the Esquire Plaza, said: "It is really important that developers be able and willing to develop properties not only in their own interests but interests in the entire area. "My experience having discussed more than one joint venture with Moe is he seems to get nervous and can't bring it to closure. He seems to have an inability to know what a good deal is and what a bad deal is."

John Lambeth, a lawyer and Mohanna's partner, would not comment. That's fine. But if you think your partner is right, why not say so?

John Saca, a former Mohanna partner currently trying to build a high rise on 10th and J streets, said he likes Mohanna and respects him. [Is Saca going to be another Moe?] But in regard to the land swap, Saca said: "I believe the city lived up to all the commitments they made to us, but unfortunately it failed."

No one disputes Mohanna's right to buy property in the path of downtown development. It's a fundamental way landowners make money. Mohanna owns 14 properties in his name, and by his count, is a partner in up to "20 or 30" buildings.

Has he ever developed anything on that land? No. He's repainted, done minor fixes to dated storefronts, taken on a collection of threadbare tenants.

"I'm ashamed of myself to delay the good work of the city but I'm not the cause, I'm the victim," he said. "I keep hearing we don't want those people. I'm one of those people. There are more homeless and mentally ill people who know me and hug me on the street." [OMG this is classic Moe bullsh't]

LeRoy Chatfield, the former director of Loaves & Fishes, the downtown charity for the homeless, said Mohanna is a friend of poor people. "Those high-rises and visions of downtown don't incorporate poor people. They displace them, and no one cares except Moe," Chatfield said. [Should we start calling him "Saint Moe"?]

That's great. But with significant land ownings and the ability to hire teams of lawyers, Mohanna is not a downtrodden little guy.

Maybe city officials wronged him on other fronts. He wouldn't be the first. Maybe Mohanna sees himself as such an outsider, he can't trust anyone and that's why he hasn't made this deal or developed new projects on his properties.

One way or the other, he's going to get paid -- even if he loses an eminent domain fight. If that's the ultimate objective, it comes at a heavy price to a community Mohanna claims to love.

[greenmidtown]

Marcos Bretón: A poke in the eye from Moe
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Sunday, July 1, 2007

"I'm ashamed of myself to delay the good work of the city but I'm not the cause, I'm the victim," he said. "I keep hearing we don't want those people. I'm one of those people. There are more homeless and mentally ill people who know me and hug me on the street."

LeRoy Chatfield, the former director of Loaves & Fishes, the downtown charity for the homeless, said Mohanna is a friend of poor people. "Those high-rises and visions of downtown don't incorporate poor people. They displace them, and no one cares except Moe," Chatfield said.

this is more entertaining than any celebrity gossip! the newschannels are missing an opportunity to film some gripping local drama.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by ozone

Opps. Well maybe I'm just so turned off by the physical appearance of the stores that I just assume they are "poverty pimps" (love that term). I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with naming these buisness off. It doesn't mean they don't cater to the poor and/or tasteless. But come now you know there are more down-at-heel shops in the K Street area than any place in Midtown.

As far as flophouses, SRO's, missions, etc.. are concerned- I just think the more of them you have -the more homeless/drug addicts you'll have around. I can't believe that liberal me is saying this but I've talked to enough homeless to know that many come to Sacramento because of the available handouts & cheap digs. I mean they aren't coming to Sacramento because they landed a great job now are they? I have known enough homeless people and in fact come in contact with them every day- where I work and live. Most homeless people have 'burned a lot of bridges' to get where they are. Many of them are not nice people. They are scam artists who became slaves to drugs and alcohol and turned down help so many times in the past that they are at the point of no return. What do we do? Well start by not feeling sorry for them and making it "easy" to be homeless. Every city in the world has homeless and beggers but here in America they seem more agressive and rude. What gives them the right to sleep on a public sidewalk or in a public park? That sounds cruel but that's how I feel.

In my experience, the problem is two-fold. 1) Concentration of "services" is a problem. A neighborhood might be able to absorb an SRO or treatment facility or feeding shelter with little disruption, but you can't ask one to absorb all three. With a concentration of services, you inevitably get a concentration of problems. A prime example of this is the notorious area just south of downtown LA (I think it's Fourth Street). Good God... it is right out of a George Romero movie. Block after block of lost souls ten deep to a side. Yellow eyes, sallow complexions all shuffling toward your car. I haven't completely stopped at a red light there in ten years. It is breathtaking and a kind of hopeless poverty you never would have thought could possibly exist in America. But there it is in all of its wretched glory. Truly a nation's shame, but part of the problem is that all necessary services are located within a few blocks. They never have any reason to leave.

And this leads us to the second part of the problem: an enabling government. Telling people they have no responsibility to try to raise themselves out of poverty is a recipe for precisely the disastrous homeless problem we see in city after city. I am all for spending the necessary funds to lift people out of misery, but they must help themselves.

I don't think it's too much to demand that while on assistance, they must stay drug and alcohol free. I completely support any effort to publicly finance appropriate rehab centers (but just try getting one of those located in a "nice" area. Liberal largesse only goes so far...) and supoort groups. Many cities do place some requirements for this kind of help, but not enough to solve - or even come close to solving - the catastrophy we see today.

We've spent billions - and we spend additional billions every year. The problem's worse than ever. Perhaps we should try a less enabling approach.

[wburg]

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.

The problem isn't that the approach is enabling, it's that it is backwards. If someone is not housed, treatment (for substance abuse or mental illness) becomes dramatically more difficult. Even if there are clinics or rehab centers, their work becomes minimized and diluted simply because upon conclusion of treatment, you end up dumping the person back onto the streets because there aren't enough housing options. Even the most stable person suffers immensely in that environment: if you think it's scary driving through that neighborhood, just imagine living in it, on the street.

By providing housing first, then providing treatment, you take away the single greatest factor that keeps people unstable: the dangerous, drug-infested, insanity-inducing life on the street. We're throwing away money not because we're enabling, but because we're spending money in the wrong direction.
Someone enters a program, starts to get better, and at the end of the program they're out on the street because there is still no place for them to call home. They relapse because drug use is all around them, their mental health suffers because they're surrounded by insanity and stress. Before long they are back where they started.

The cycle can be broken when people enter one of the handful of programs that provide permanent housing and supportive services. Suddenly, the client is no longer a "homeless person" but a person with a home: not just a shelter bed in a dormitory, but a home that is theirs alone, potentially a permanent home. It is at this point when they realize they now have something, and therefore something to lose. And if they have support, especially the sort that comes to them, they aren't simply being warehoused. It's not a guarantee that they'll succeed, but the odds are a lot better.

[Grimnebulin]

Originally Posted by wburg

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.

The problem isn't that the approach is enabling, it's that it is backwards. If someone is not housed, treatment (for substance abuse or mental illness) becomes dramatically more difficult. Even if there are clinics or rehab centers, their work becomes minimized and diluted simply because upon conclusion of treatment, you end up dumping the person back onto the streets because there aren't enough housing options. Even the most stable person suffers immensely in that environment: if you think it's scary driving through that neighborhood, just imagine living in it, on the street.

By providing housing first, then providing treatment, you take away the single greatest factor that keeps people unstable: the dangerous, drug-infested, insanity-inducing life on the street. We're throwing away money not because we're enabling, but because we're spending money in the wrong direction.
Someone enters a program, starts to get better, and at the end of the program they're out on the street because there is still no place for them to call home. They relapse because drug use is all around them, their mental health suffers because they're surrounded by insanity and stress. Before long they are back where they started.

The cycle can be broken when people enter one of the handful of programs that provide permanent housing and supportive services. Suddenly, the client is no longer a "homeless person" but a person with a home: not just a shelter bed in a dormitory, but a home that is theirs alone, potentially a permanent home. It is at this point when they realize they now have something, and therefore something to lose. And if they have support, especially the sort that comes to them, they aren't simply being warehoused. It's not a guarantee that they'll succeed, but the odds are a lot better.

Very well put, wburg.

[greenmidtown]

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.
...

I agree. European countries with their "welfare societies" have smaller and in several countries non-existent homeless populations. Even in New Zealand there is free housing for the destitute. You can't blame some people for suffering mental illness and losing control of their lives. I understand the frustration with those causing trouble downtown and I think that shouldn't be tolerated. But at the same time many of these people need help, real help. Not loaves and fishes but in many cases psychiatry and rehab. I mean we're the only developed country in the world that refuses psychiatric and medical services to those who can't afford it, all 45 million! As long as we have this fundamentalist attitude of "everyone for themselves" and the poor can manage with our bread crumbs the homeless problem will only get worse. Look at England during the Industrial Revolution where a huge portion of society was homeless and abused (think Charles Dickens novels) that's capitalism. Only Socialist policies can tame some of the ravages of unrestrained capitalism.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

I've seen that area of Los Angeles: it's a classic example of what happens when an entire region's homeless policy consists of "ship them to the big city," and the big city's response is to bulldoze them into one area and not provide housing. If there are services there, they are scarcely visible: it's more like human warehousing, because the city can't afford (or doesn't have the political will, more likely) to do more than that.

The problem isn't that the approach is enabling, it's that it is backwards. If someone is not housed, treatment (for substance abuse or mental illness) becomes dramatically more difficult. Even if there are clinics or rehab centers, their work becomes minimized and diluted simply because upon conclusion of treatment, you end up dumping the person back onto the streets because there aren't enough housing options. Even the most stable person suffers immensely in that environment: if you think it's scary driving through that neighborhood, just imagine living in it, on the street.

By providing housing first, then providing treatment, you take away the single greatest factor that keeps people unstable: the dangerous, drug-infested, insanity-inducing life on the street. We're throwing away money not because we're enabling, but because we're spending money in the wrong direction.
Someone enters a program, starts to get better, and at the end of the program they're out on the street because there is still no place for them to call home. They relapse because drug use is all around them, their mental health suffers because they're surrounded by insanity and stress. Before long they are back where they started.

The cycle can be broken when people enter one of the handful of programs that provide permanent housing and supportive services. Suddenly, the client is no longer a "homeless person" but a person with a home: not just a shelter bed in a dormitory, but a home that is theirs alone, potentially a permanent home. It is at this point when they realize they now have something, and therefore something to lose. And if they have support, especially the sort that comes to them, they aren't simply being warehoused. It's not a guarantee that they'll succeed, but the odds are a lot better.

No program in the world is going to work without some requirement for personal accountability. The Los Angeles Homeless Authority is located in the heart of this area. By no one's definition can that be called "scarcely visible." It provides food, shelter, counseling and drug/alcohol rehab services. A quick look in the eyes of anyone in this area tells you some of these services are used far more often that others.

LA does suffer disproportionately than many cities because their benefits are far more generous that those of surrounding cities, but another part of the problem is that many services are provided with few strings attached. So LA's homeless problem has just as much to do with lifestyle and other carrots as it does bulldozers, busses and other sticks, .

Giving people services with no requirement to break the cycle that leads to their misery is indeed enabling. That is backwards. Giving them a home with no lifestyle change requirement will change nothing. One could argue that a home itself is a lifestyle change. I agree, but not one that by itself can be expected to solve the problem.

I can enthusiastically support your proposal above with the caveat that measurable performance goals are articulated and achieved and that drug testing is required and one must pass to continue in the program.

Most people are where they are, for good or ill, because of personal choices. Most of us a just a series of bad decisions from the street. Any system or program that enables a person to continue making bad decisions is doomed to failure.

wburg - you've mentioned successful homeless programs before. Where are they and what are their common characteristics? How do they measure success? Do they follow the model you outline above? What is their cost per resident and how does it compare with other programs?

We've spent billions on this problem and continue to spend billions (more than any country on earth) and it's only gotten worse. You can see the futility of these programs by taking a walk through any city in the country. In every city, the overwhelming contributing factor is drug/alcohol abuse.

Unless that changes, all the housing in the world won't make a difference.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

Only Socialist policies can tame some of the ravages of unrestrained capitalism.

Hey now, no need to get carried away! There's a big difference between policies that attempt to solve, rather than ignore or punish, social problems, and socialism. In fact, the Eastern Bloc's track record for treatment of mental illness and substance abuse was less than abysmal.

In my mind, the American people (via its government) started social-welfare programs because we disliked the idea of seeing Americans starve to death on the street even less than the idea of increased taxation to address social concerns. If the public is to be expected to support such programs with their tax dollars, it makes the most sense to ensure that these programs are cost-effective, and programs that provide housing and case management are a lot more cost-effective than the current "treatment by crisis" approach, where we ignore the homeless until they end up in jail, in an emergency room bed, or in a psychiatric treatment center. They also result in fewer people on the street. Think of it like regular maintenance on your car: while you may consider it an inconvenience to have to change your oil, filters, etcetera, the regular expense of maintenance costs less than the eventual bill for an engine destroyed due to lack of maintenance.

Calling it "socialism" justifies socialist ends, and that is certainly not my intent.

[wburg]

There are "Housing First" programs running in Portland and New York (as well as other cities) that target chronic homeless. They aren't without consequences, although a certain level of relapse is tolerated.

The "requirement to break the cycle" is making permanent housing available. That's not something that a homeless person can generally do. So, in asking a homeless person to "break the cycle" when the key problem is something out of their control, you inherently set them up for failure. By providing housing, then attacking other problems, you present the person with a way to break the cycle, then they can start to address other problems. This sets them up for success.

http://www.jointogether.org/news/hea...ing-first.html

http://psychservices.psychiatryonlin...ull/56/10/1303

Although I'm still not sure how this applies to K Street, because there aren't any homeless shelters in the central business district...

We've spent billions on this problem and continue to spend billions (more than any country on earth) and it's only gotten worse. You can see the futility of these programs by taking a walk through any city in the country. In every city, the overwhelming contributing factor is drug/alcohol abuse.

In many countries, those in poverty are simply tolerated, stepped over, allowed to die in the street. We don't have massive "mushroom" cities made of shanties of tin and cardboard around every urban area like South America or Africa, we don't have families who pass down their two-square-meter spot on the sidewalk to their children like South Asia...and, more to the point, we don't have the kinds of programs that make homelessness such a small problem in Europe. So, really, we're more somewhere in the middle. And if we're spending more money than Europe, it's a pretty safe bet that the problem is that we're spending the money the wrong way.