It is a rainy day in Santa Monica. About dozen homeless people have gathered under the overhang at The Ocean Park Community Access Center on Olympic Boulevard, which is the hub for homeless services in Santa Monica. While the rain pours down, the homeless huddle, share cigarettes and joke wryly about available “shelter.”

Santa Monica developed a reputation as a "homeless friendly” community back in the eighties, when the City of Santa Monica opened its doors to the poorest of the poor, setting up an extensive network of homeless services and even sanctioning a "tent city" on the lawn of City Hall. Drawn by this reputation as well as by the warm weather, the homeless began to stream in to Santa Monica. Along the way, the politics of this beautiful, wealthy city by the sea changed, but the reputation remained.

The current leadership of the city of Santa Monica is, in fact, engaged in legal warfare against this population. Under the tutelage of the misnamed “Homeless Liaison Office,” the city has drafted and passed legislation criminalizing behavior that simply bespeaks poverty. A major proponent of these new laws is Councilman Bobby Shriver, brother to Maria Shriver, who is the wife of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It was Shriver whom I first heard drop the phrase, “quality of life crimes.”

For example, it is now illegal (and punishable by six months jail time) to engage in any of the following behaviors: Washing your hair in a public restroom; Sleeping on the beach or in parks during the day; Sleeping in a car; Shaving in a public restroom; “Aggressive” panhandling. The definition for “aggressive” involves all verbalizations requesting assistance. Signs are still legal.

In addition, the City has passed laws that placed a “chilling” effect on those wishing to assist the homeless, by feeding them. The 9th circuit court of appeals upheld laws in Santa Monica which prohibited public feedings, unless a permit were acquired. The terms of the permit, which were required for events accommodating more than 150 people, placed a minimum $500 clean-up fee, payable to the City, as well as a more modest permit fee simply to pass out food to hungry people.

Paul Grymkowski, a former owner of the chain Gold’s gym and a deacon in a local church, had been passing out food two days a week in Palisades Park for a number of years. He was providing high quality, vegetable-intensive meals, which were enormously popular among the homeless. Upon passage of the anti-feeding law, he changed his format and began to display signs reading “The Grymkowski Family and Friends Picnic.” He reasoned that he could not be arrested and jailed for holding picnics.

The police began to show up at Grymkowski’s events, and shortly thereafter, he discontinued serving meals in the park. The Status Report from The City of Santa Monica reveals that the number of public feedings dropped from 26 down to only five, since the adoption of the permit laws in 2002. The status report also includes the rationale for the permit laws: “The feedings often attract large crowds. As most of the persons receiving food are, or appear to be homeless, they usually have significant amounts of personal property with them…wear and tear on park property is substantial. Perhaps most importantly, the scheduled public feedings tend to facilitate homeless people staying in the streets.”

Well, I guess if they don’t eat, they won’t be living on the streets (or anywhere else) very long…

Several years ago, Grymkowski expressed concern that he would soon be jailed for his large heart. At this point, he has moved his picnics out of the park to the “legal” interior of the OPCC Access Center.

Homelessness is increasing in Santa Monica. The ravages of the economy and the termination of the Section 8 housing program in Los Angeles have all contributed to the swelling of the numbers of the poorest of the poor. The service visits at OPCC support this perception. The number of people served at OPCC’s Access Center for FY 2004-2005 was 2,095. By FY 2006-7, the number had jumped to over 2,700.

Interestingly enough, the official Homeless Census, sponsored by Los Angeles Homeless Services Association, tells a different story. The census reports that the numbers of homeless in Santa Monica dropped 25% between 2005 and 2007, from 1991 to 1506. This was dutifully reported in the Santa Monica Daily Press, which quoted city officials as stating that the results of the homeless count demonstrate that the efforts of the city to help the homeless are working.

John Maceri, the Executive Director of OPCC, did not return calls from TAB inquiring as to the discrepancy between his agency’s figures and what was reported in the press.

The City of Santa Monica has launched an aggressive program to address the “homeless problem.” The shelter programs in Los Angeles County, of which Santa Monica is a part, currently offer a maximum of about 12,000 beds, for a population of over 73,000. This figure includes the “winter shelter” beds, when the National Guard Armories open their doors between the months of November and March and transitional housing beds. For Santa Monica, “homeless capital of the United States,” the emergency and transitional shelter beds total 261. This figure increases by 464 if one adds in the transitional housing beds, which can be occupied for up to two years. Julie Rusk, director of Santa Monica City Hall’s homeless effort, seized upon the so-called “drop” in homelessness in Santa Monica and proclaimed, “We are going in the right direction.”

Rusk did not return calls from TAB requesting an explanation for the apparent drop in the homeless census at the same time that the service numbers for OPCC were on the rise. Stacy Rowe, Human Services Administrator, did agree to speak with this reporter. She suggested that the reasons that the figures for OPCC were on the rise was due to the “excellent” job of outreach that agency was doing.

However, rhe word on the streets is that the numbers of homeless in Santa Monica is exploding. “We’ve got people flooding in here like nobody’s business,” said “Dave,” who was parking his bike in front of OPCC.

Under the banner of addressing the “homeless problem,” Santa Monica has recently set up a “Homeless Court.” The questionable Constitutionality of bifurcating the legal system and setting up a court for only those in particular economic stratum does not seem to bother City Hall. Homeless court convenes once a month, to hear cases involving “quality of life” and other petty cases against homeless individuals. The city’s website hails this as “an innovative pilot project.” Spearheaded by Santa Monica Homeless “Czar” Ed Edelman, the court will offer drug and psychiatric assistance, rather than jail time, to those arrested for “petty offenses.”

In “Ending Homelessness in Santa Monica,” authored by the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., a “big stick” approach is advocated, using the threat of increased incarceration as the prod. “As things stand now," states the report, “the only ‘or else’ that the court will have, as it urges homeless people to ‘cooperate, or else,’ is a relatively short stay in jail. We believe it will need a stronger ‘or else’ to make a real dent; changing the jail could supply that strength.”

This brings us to the spectre of Army Regulation 210-35. Drafted into law in 1997 and revised in 2005, 210-35 calls for the setting up of “civilian inmate labor camps” on military bases. There has been much buzz, mostly on the internet, concerning closed military bases being reconfigured as “concentration camps.” The fact is that 210-35 reveals who the denizens of these forced labor camps will be. Section 3-5 (a) (6) states that the camps should be set up in compliance with the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. This was enacted under the administration of Ronald Reagan, in 1987.

The Army Regulation goes on to mitigate any sort of press coverage of activities or inmates, and chillingly states that if inmate deaths occur, the host agency will not be held responsible.

In an interview last fall with Danielle Noble of the Homeless Liaison office in Santa Monica, Noble explicitly denied any knowledge of 210-35. “We have enough trouble getting the homeless into regular housing,” she said. “Why would we put them in concentration camps?”

I guess I have some questions, too. Why would someone be arrested for shaving in a public restroom? Why would the City of Santa Monica put forward $476, 237 (estimated costs for one year pilot Homeless Court ), which admittedly served only eighty-two people in a one year span of time, when it would cost less to simply house these individuals?

And why is the legal system being altered to criminalize poverty? Why does the Urban Institute advocate “changing the jail” to “make a dent” on homelessness? And why in the world does the Army now have in place plans to place homeless people in forced labor camps?

The poor are always with us, or so stated the Bible. Maybe the U.S. Government has made different plans.

While the blog post titled “Southern California’s Silent Holocaust” of Aug 6, 2010 was a re-post of a 2008 article, the City of Santa Monica stands by its unparalleled commitment to treatment, assistance and permanent supportive housing as the answer to ending homelessness.

Under the strong leadership of Mayor Bobby Shriver, Councilmember Richard Bloom and the entire City Council, Santa Monica is known nationwide for its long history of responding to homelessness with compassion, innovation and funding. The Action Plan to Address Homelessness in Santa Monica is a focused strategy developed by the City with local service providers and other agencies to ensure the most vulnerable and chronically homeless people on the streets are served. Its ultimate goal is permanent, supportive housing. Further, there are over 450 shelter beds available to homeless individuals in Santa Monica, much more than most other cities in the region.

Santa Monica’s taxpayers fund over 20 non-profit programs to serve the homeless population. In addition, the Santa Monica Housing Authority provides rental subsidies to homeless and formerly homeless individuals for permanent housing. In total, Santa Monica spends $5.7 million annually on these programs. This substantial investment in the homeless population has generated a strong return for the community. The City of Santa Monica experienced a 19% reduction in its homeless population from 2009-2010, and a 25% reduction from 2007-2010.

While Santa Monica has excelled in addressing this issue, homelessness is ultimately a regional, state and national problem. The City continues to call for a sustained approach to homelessness wherein each jurisdiction does its fair share to address the needs in their own communities.

JULIE RUSK
Human Services Manager
City of Santa Monica
August 2010

Ms. Rusk,

I see where you recently posted a comment on "Homeless No More," which was originally published in both The American's Bulletin and the Venice Beachhead. It is also on the front page of my website, http://www.janetphelan.com.

Your comment does not address the fundamental issues developed in the article, to wit: 1) the tweaking of figures having to do with the homeless count 2) the devastating "quality of life" laws being passed by the City of Santa Monica, which are creating criminals out of the poorest of the poor and 3) the implications of Army Regulation 210-35.

I am currently a regular contributor to a newspaper in San Bernardino County and regularly am asked to guest on radio shows across the country. Just last Thursday, I was on American Freedom Radio and the issue of Army Regulation 210-35 was raised. If you have any substantive information to controvert these concerns, I would like to invite you to dialogue with me about this.

You now have my email address. I will look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Janet Phelan

Oh, to be Homeless No More is a good idea, but how to do this ?

A very informative article about homeless with some stats, tho the verification or validation of methods of taking 'counts' is not noted nor commented on. Accusations of course are always made to interest any audience and find motive in writing.

Good information that is needs the readers' to research the reality of all 'facts' given blithely.

but the questions asked have no value without some further investigation or research first...are the readers suppose to do this because they have a stake in the homeless people who gather round every neighborhood, unless gated, even the affluent areas are loaded with secret cubbyholes of 'stuff' from homeless residents.

The questions from article are below with only 1 possible of many imagined, unresearched, guessed logically, or thought-full answers possible are provided below. Add your own answers and many more will emerge, and maybe expand the limited version of only accusations being made into suggestions being offered or implemented even .

quote: "I guess I have some questions, too. "

Answer: Think and wonder and ask and then ask more questions...you offer us nothing of your views other than objecting here.

"Why would someone be arrested for shaving in a public restroom? "

Answer: Because Public is funded by public funds for toilet and handwashing urgent use, not for substituting for all other home-available chores: shaving, hair washing, bathing, clothes washing, baby diaper cleaning, food washing, etc.

"Why would the City of Santa Monica put forward $476, 237 (estimated costs for one year pilot Homeless Court ), which admittedly served only eighty-two people in a one year span of time, when it would cost less to simply house these individuals? "

Answer: Because the 1st year is not indicative of the rest of the use as the program adapts to needs of homeless or becomes known as safe and trustworthy and becomes used better or even somewhat differently. Sensible thoughts provide simple answers.

"And why is the legal system being altered to criminalize poverty? "

Answer: The poor have always both had to act in ways less lawful and commonplace to survive their conditions and limitations and the legal system reflects not the majority of any population but the decrees and needs of the more powerful and thus affluent.

What's new about the legal system not being fair or equal to all who have or do not have money, access or power? How much alteration is needed to be noticed?

Answer: There appear to be more homeless visible and also as a source of dismay, disgust, or irritation, as well as their willing to be camping and 'living' in other people's paid-for property.

The smells, the fluids, the left-behind stuff & mess, the not-fitting-in with where they set up day or night is not appreciated by most.

Answer:
If the majority are mentally disordered and not taking psychiatric meds or getting treatment [not because of where they live but also because they reject these services frequently] or could it be because most homeless dont wear watches or care about appointment timeliness ?

The problem is not housing but whole-person-treatment, as they had when asylumed in institutions.

Answer 2 : Another large portion of homeless are now, if not before too, alcohol abusers, drug users, and boosters when they can be - as survival tactics but also as lifestyles that do not help them stay in 'normal' living conditions, even when given to them for free.

Answer 3: The worst way to change people is to jail them at a high cost to all taxpayers and to further criminalize those who are desperate, limited in their own strengths, and also easily influenced to do stupid things w/o thinking them through. But the easy answer is always jails, prisons, and we all pay highly for those 'free' services provided therein.

"Why does the Urban Institute advocate “changing the jail” to “make a dent” on homelessness? And why in the world does the Army now have in place plans to place homeless people in forced labor camps? "

Answer: They are searching for an economical easy answer to utilize military bases and give them some income instead of loss of land and values and jobs....what better way to pay military more than to create camps to monitor and supervise?

The Army has lots of political access and allies and does mostly what the so-called-defense-dept prefers without concern about civilians liking it or not. Nothing new here. "forced labor" does not mean real labor more than a few exceptional prisoners do to earn money or get points for early release.

Not slave labor, because some small part of their earnings go towards upkeep expense and most of it goes into profits of private corp that sets up program. What's new in this ? Not much.

The Homeless come in many flavors, varieties, abilities and mental capacities to live ordinary or normal lifestyles. They are not just 'dropped out because of lack of employment' which is the euphemistic image.

The Homeless are most often disabled in multiple ways, less physically than emotionally, mentally, less able competently to live regular lives, for many many different reasons... Some have never been 'regular people' living ordinary lives, ever .

Some few have 'fallen' on hard times, but they have the skills and repertoire to return even in a less prestigious capacity. Most have conditions they do NOT want treated or admitted even.

The high majority are male. The claims of being veterans is often questionable but a few were allowed into services and fell out of acted out irresponsibly. A number has PTSD legitimately yet many more like that claim to sound heroic.

The problems are so complex and varied that many answers and solutions should be attempted. Just accusing agencies that they are not good enough or not fair enough is NOT AN ANSWER.

try again.