What is Homeless Housing and Supportive Services?

The recent interest and funding to build homeless housing with supportive services has resulted in many questioning what the most effective building and service partnerships which should be formed.  I’d like to share what I believe.

Long ago, when community groups providing supportive services reached out to housing developers to house our clients, we helped each other gain new skills.  Service agencies learned about housing development, and housing developers learned about needs beyond a place to live.  The partnerships strengthened each, and a significant number of our homeless community were helped into stability and housing.  Those fleeing domestic violence, being flushed out of state mental hospitals, and struggling with addictions received new hope. 

But while the joint development of housing was certainly a bold and successful addition to our community’s assets, it was the recognition that forming a supportive community of those sharing the journey that made the lasting impact.  Remembering that most of those being targeted had only limited experience alone on the streets, our solutions were focused on fulfilling their desire to transition to traditional family housing lifestyles.  Even so, success was greatly dependent on how effectively we helped build a new intentional supportive community around them.

In the interim, those left behind in our efforts have built communities of their own anywhere they could.  Our unwillingness to push beyond the socially acceptable homeless has not deterred those out early and pushed out consistently from turning their anger and resourcefulness into survival strategies.  The failures of our society to deliver the basic components of upward mobility to most of our citizens has soured many of them on whether it will ever be so.

In the work we will face over the next two months to create a county response to the millions of dollars being offered by the state for homeless supportive housing, we need to talk about what the housing and supportive services which are needed by the long-term, un-housed homeless.  Experienced in living in shelters, vacant houses, buildings, tents, sleeping bags, and shadows – we need to work with them to learn what they need to build stability and a willingness to reach out to us.

We need to also recognize that this new group of long-term homeless may only be able to transition if the route is through small communities that give each other support.  Many of those small communities have been cobbled together using less thsn traditional housing models, and the supportive services provided to each other are not available through existing housing designs.

Those of us who aspire to bring about new resources which meet the needs that are defined need to commit strongly to work together.  We need to re-imagine both what supportive services and homeless housing are, and our roles in bringing it about.  I am dedicated to bringing an open mind to that work, and I invite others to join with me in doing so.

Gregory Fearon

2040 Elizabeth Way

707 230-1198

gfearon@gmail.com

Santa Rosa November 2018 Campaign Calendar

If you want to embed this calendar into another website, contact us at 707 230-1198.

Final Recommendations

Greetings!

This afternoon, a group of our friends are gathering at our house to discuss the state ballot propositions.  I've indicated my current preferences, and those members of the group will be reporting on (in red)

Proposition

51 - $9 billion in bonds for education and schools.   Undecided (Yes).  Shouldn't these be locally decided?
uthorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K-12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.

52 - Voter approval to divert hospital fee revenue dedicated to Medi-Cal.  Undecided (Yes). Shouldn't this be a legislative decision?
Extends indefinitely an existing statute that imposes fees on hospitals to fund Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children’s health coverage. Fiscal Impact: Uncertain fiscal effect, ranging from relatively little impact to annual state General Fund savings of around $1 billion and increased funding for public hospitals in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

53 - Voter approval requirement for revenue bonds above $2 billion.  No.  Does a bullet train or earthquake repair really warrant rejection?
Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Fiscal Impact: State and local fiscal effects are unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure and what actions government agencies and voters take in response to the measure’s voting requirement.

54 - Public display of legislative bills prior to vote.  Yes.
Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before vote. Requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet. Authorizes use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.

55 - Personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000.  Yes.
Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K-12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues—$4 billion to $9 billion annually from 2019-2030—depending on economy and stock market. Increased funding for schools, community colleges, health care for low-income people, budget reserves, and debt payments.

56 - Increase the cigarette tax to $2.00 per pack.  Yes.

Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Fiscal Impact: Additional net state revenue of $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017-18, with potentially lower revenues in future years. Revenues would be used primarily to augment spending on health care for low-income Californians.

57 - Parole for non-violent criminals and juvenile court trial requirements.  Yes.
Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as adult. Fiscal Impact: Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation. Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.

58 - Non-English languages allowed in public education.  Undecided (Yes).  Does eliminating parental consent really benefit anyone?
Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.

59 - Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question.  Yes.
Asks whether California’s elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

60 - Require the use of condoms in pornographic films.  Undecided.  Shouldn't this be a legislative decision?  Making Weinstein (bill author) a state employee, and violating privacy of performers?
Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.

61 - Prescription drug price regulations.  Yes.  Will veterans really be harmed?
Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid for the drug by United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through Medi-Cal. Fiscal Impact: Potential for state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure’s implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of their drugs.

62 - Repeal the death penalty.  Yes.
Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution. Fiscal Impact: Net ongoing reduction in state and county criminal justice costs of around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.

63 - Background checks for ammunition purchases/large capacity magazine ban.  Yes.
Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.

64 - Legalization of marijuana and hemp.  Yes.
Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation. Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues ranging from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.

65 - Dedication of revenue from disposable bags to wildlife conservation Fund.  No.
Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.

66 - Death penalty procedures.  No.
Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

67 - Plastic bag ban veto referendum.  Yes.
In 2007, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in California to ban single-use plastic bags. Since then, 108 ordinances banning single-use plastic bags have been approved in the state, covering 137 county or local jurisdictions. Los Angeles, the largest city in California and second largest in the United States, banned single-use plastic bags and placed a 10 cent charge on paper bags. The city's ordinance went into effect on January 1, 2014, for large businesses and on July 1, 2014, for small businesses. There were initiative attempts to overturn local single-use plastic bag bans in Walnut Creek, Huntington Creek and Campbell, California. All were unsuccessful in their signature drives. In January 2015, however, Huntington Beach's city council voted to repeal the city's bag ban. Councilman Mike Posey, who proposed the repeal, said repealing the ban was about "personal freedom and personal responsibility.

Final Recommendations

Greetings!

This afternoon, a group of our friends are gathering at our house to discuss the state ballot propositions.  Here's how I am leaning so far:

Proposition

51 - $9 billion in bonds for education and schools.   Undecided.  Shouldn't these be locally decided?
52 - Voter approval to divert hospital fee revenue dedicated to Medi-Cal.  Undecided. Shouldn't this be a legislative decision?
53 - Voter approval requirement for revenue bonds above $2 billion.  No.  Does a bullet train or earthquake repair really warrant rejection?
54 - Public display of legislative bills prior to vote.  Yes.
55 - Personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000.  Yes.
56 - Increase the cigarette tax to $2.00 per pack.  Yes.
57 - Parole for non-violent criminals and juvenile court trial requirements.  Yes.
58 - Non-English languages allowed in public education.  Undecided.  Does eliminating parental consent really benefit anyone?
59 - Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question.  Yes.
60 - Require the use of condoms in pornographic films.  Undecided.  Why is everyone against this?
61 - Prescription drug price regulations.  Yes.  Will veterans really be harmed?
62 - Repeal the death penalty.  Yes.
63 - Background checks for ammunition purchases/large capacity magazine ban.  Yes.
64 - Legalization of marijuana and hemp.  Yes.
65 - Dedication of revenue from disposable bags to wildlife conservation Fund.  No.
66 - Death penalty procedures.  No.
67 - Plastic bag ban veto referendum.  Yes.

November 2016 Elections

Greetings!

Well, the November, 2016 local elections have begun.  Candidates for the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors and Santa Rosa City Council are announcing themselves, and seeking support.

Those seats up for election (and candidates confirmed (c) or rumored) are:

Supervisor
2nd District
Susan Gorin (c, incumbent)
Gina Cuclis (c)

3rd District
Shirley Zane (c, incumbent)


5th District
Lynda Hopkins (c)
Eric Koenigshofer
Dennis Rosatti
Taway Tesconi
Rue Furch
Noreen Evans


Santa Rosa City Council
Julie Combs (c, incumbent)
Erin Carlstrom (c, incumbent)
Ernesto Olivares (c, incumbent)
Jack Tibbetts (c)
Brandi Asker (c)
Nelly Schuyler (c)
Gary Wysocky (incumbent)
Ashlee Crocker

Who gets Power?

Greetings!

Periodically, you hear that our political system is stacked in favor of the insiders, the rich, the connected, those with friends in power.  When I saw that this morning's Press Democrat had the names and addresses of the judicial nominees for next year's Grand Jury, I thought it might be interesting to examine that common belief that the power brokers live in a few known neighborhoods.

Here is a  Google Map of the homes of the nominees:

Santa Rosa City Council - Open Government and New Faces

Greetings!

For those of you who missed the December 2nd Santa Rosa City Council meeting, I encourage you to review it as a stored video on the City's website.

After some preliminary business by the outgoing Council, including the acceptance of the Open Government Task Force Report and ending with the formal acceptance of the results of the November 4th Council election, the retiring council members (Swinth and Barkley - Oars was absent) said their goodbyes and received their colleagues acclaim and thanks.  Then the meeting got interesting.

The new members were sworn in, and said their own thanks to their supporters.  Next up, choosing a Mayor and Vice Mayor.  Without anyone to lead the meeting at that moment, the seven of them struggled to find a way to proceed.

What becomes clear in the next 30 minutes is the concern that historically the first person nominated to become Mayor is voted on first, and is usually selected.  So who gets the floor to make a motion - has the most power in the process.  So, who selects who gets to make the first motion when there is no one to chair the meeting?

After all of them offering ideas as diplomatically as can be done without being recognized, the comments of the City Manager and City Attorney help the Council come up with a solution.  They will let the City Clerk draw their names out of a hat to determine the order in which they can offer nominations for Mayor.  After a short break, in which Coursey spends time talking to Sawyer, Wysocky with Schwedhelm, Carlstrom leaving the room, and the others remaining apart, the results are announced.  Sawyer does not nominate.  Coombs nominates Sawyer, and Wysocky seconds.   Schwedhelm does not nominate.   Coursey does not nominate.  Wysocky does not nominate.   Olivares nominates Carlstrom, and Schwedhelm seconds.  Carlstrom does not nominate.

Following their rule, Sawyer's nomination is the first voted upon, and he gets the support of Coursey, Wysocky, and Coombs.  Taking the leadership, he recognizes Olivares who nominates Carlstrom.  Coombs nominates Coursey.  The vote for Carlstrom receives the support of Olivares and Schwedhelm.  Coursey is then elected unanimously.  Coombs then moves to make the election of Sawyer unanimous, and they do.