What happens in seven years?
That was the question on everyone’s lips Tuesday night during a special meeting of the Santa Clara City Council. The meeting was a continuation of an item from last week where the Council was slated to vote on whether to build a homeless housing project on Benton Street and Lawrence Expressway.
State money would fund a large chunk of the project through Project Homekey, a state initiative to build housing for the poor. But details as to what will happen on the site after the expiration of the seven-year agreement are still nebulous.
The item needed to be pushed back because of several hours of public comments at the previous meeting. Tuesday, many public members returned to the Council Chambers to oppose the project. Many people brandished signs with slogans encapsulating the public outcry, which included the high cost, a distrust of the operator — LifeMoves — and safety concerns.
“I understand that parents here are very concerned about the safety of their own children, but what about the safety of children living in cars or tents?” Council Member Suds Jain said. “That is also my responsibility as a council member. I believe that children living in stable housing will be subject to fewer threats than those living on the streets. The stress of living on the street leads to mental illness, poor health and sometimes substance abuse.”
In response to public input, the project has changed substantially from its inception. Changes include a reduction from four to three stories and, with it, a population decrease from 124 units to 30 units and a stipulation that it would only house families.
Still, the public still found the project unpalatable.
Estimated construction cost is $34 million, with annual operating costs estimated at $3.74 million a year. Tax dollars from Project Homekey, Santa Clara County and philanthropic contributions from developer John Sobrato would pay for construction.
While Santa Clara would not be on the hook for any construction cost, the City would need to pay $7 million in operating costs over the life of the agreement. Should construction costs exceed estimates, the County would cover the overage to the tune of $9.2 million. However, that money would come from the County’s contribution to the yearly operating cost, leaving the City liable for the gap.
The City would pay the operating costs with state money called Permanent Local Housing Allocation as well as money it collects through its affordable housing ordinance.
“If the City is interested in pursuing a Project Homekey development, this is a good opportunity for the City in terms of the financing that is being brought in from other sources,” said Andrew Crabtree, the City’s director of community development.
The interim housing project fulfills two of the Homelessness Task Force priorities, Crabtree said. Residents stay in interim housing between four and six months on average, he added.
Crabtree originally recommended that the Council sponsor the project while trying to limit the City’s liability by shifting it to LifeMoves and the County, which owns the land.
Brian Greenberg, with LifeMoves, said families have greater rates of finding permanent housing — around 80% — than single people or even couples. He dismissed reports of mismanagement of the nonprofit’s Mountain View site, chalking the issues up to the pandemic and saying they have since been resolved.
The site is secure, with cameras and a single entry point. LifeMoves employees are onsite around the clock and well-trained, Greenberg said.
“Our jobs are not flipping burgers. Our staff need some skill and have to be able to think on their feet and be able to have that empathic, compassionate stance toward their job,” LifeMoves Vice President of Programs and Services said.
The project divided the Council, with a couple council members expressing how conflicted the issue made them.
The item made some strange bedfellows. In an almost unheard of display, Council Member Kathy Watanabe voted in opposition to political ally Mayor Lisa Gillmor. Instead, Gillmor joined Vice Mayor Kevin Park, someone with whom she often butts heads, and Council Member Raj Chahal in opposing the motion.
Park said he would like to transform the City’s concern about homelessness into an understanding of how to solve the problem.
“You’re looking at one group of people. Like we would like to help those people that you’re bringing in, but if it comes at the expense of the people already here, I don’t know that I can say yes to that,” Park said. “And, if I don’t know that the environment that we are creating for the people we are bringing in is going to be this fearless, safe environment that we like children to live in, I don’t know that I can support that either.”
Watanabe said the project could be the first step in stopping the cycle of homelessness.
“In the long run, keeping people on the street is more expensive than them having a place to live,” she said.
Council Member Karen Hardy said it “must be nice” for people who have the luxury of not knowing uncertainty. When her father — her family’s sole breadwinner — died when she was 13, Hardy, her mother and Hardy’s six-month-old sister knew that uncertainty all too well.
“If you saw a child in danger, I would think most of you would stop and help and would not count the cost first,” Hardy said. “I know what it is to be scared, and to not know how things are going to work out.”
Despite the uncertainty of the property’s fate after seven years, in a 4-3 vote, the Council approved funding the project but opted to not sponsor it.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is Tuesday, May 7 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
Members of the public can participate in the City Council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1(669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov.
View Comments (52)
The number is not right here.
If the site only house 30 families, how would the cost be $3.74 million every year?
For 30 families, if you give them $5,000 every month to find a very luxury place to rent (I would think $3,000 would be a reasonable monthly rent, but some may think that is not decent enough), then the cost is 1.8 million every year.
Why would we build a site and pay more money to house them? We can just give them 1.8 million every year, and they can comfortably find some luxury places to rent and live happy life.
You might want to stock 0.2 million every year, to specify somebody to check the qualification of applications. That is a $200,000 job to select 30 families every year.
That would be 2 million dollar every year to spend on housing 30 families.
This is an interesting take of the problem. I would imagine they have some fixed overhead cost that would only make this project financially viable when it was scaled beyond 100+ units. So when scaled back down it becomes ridiculous. But generally speaking, homeless related non-profits and charities and extremely inefficient. Billions have been poured in SF (about $60k per homeless person per year) but look at where we are now.
Ben,
.
The cost is not just for housing but also support programs, security and maintenance, and even three meals per day.
.
It might be high but you like most of the opponents I have seen voice criticism seem to voice criticism in order to attack the project but not to make it better.
.
What I have seen is people attack the project for housing individuals who might have mental or drug problems. And then when accommodation of public criticism is made and the project is changed to house families then the same people attack it for not being as efficient a use of funding as if they did not argue against economy of scale earlier. And even argue that the units are not big enough as if it is preferable for a family with children to live on the streets or in a vehicle or in a group shelter. I have seen many even try to argue that incorporating their criticism and requests is a negative last minute change.
.
We need transitional housing. Instead of fighting to keep it out of this neighborhood everyone should be fighting to have it in all neighborhoods.
.
Instead of grasping at any sort of negative comment to attack the project and try to keep it from being built people should be using their energy to try to get it built and point out how the project could be made better or more efficient.
Hi Buchser,
.
Let me start replying your post with a declaimer: I don't own property close to the site, not even in the Santa Clara county, and I support helping homeless. I go to a Second Harvest site regularly to distribute food every Thursday; although the food-receiver are not homeless, I know how the system works.
.
I have known of the discussion of this project all the way, and supported it half-heartily, but never paid extra attention to it, never attended the townhall meetings. But today I am threw off by the numbers in this report. I am suggesting a better project to help 30 families: Give them $1.8 million every year, so each family can have $5000 every month for rent. I didn't know the project also provide 3 meals everyday. I guess $5000 every month might even cover the food, if not, the existing food donation NGOs (like Second Harvest) might be able to absorb the extra need.
You mentioned "support programs, security and maintenance, and even three meals per day". I've covered the 3 meals per day. When the families rent house in neighborhood with reasonable rent, no security and maintenance is needed. For the support program, I actually allocated $200,000 for that purpose.
.
With this project, the families in need are no longer "homeless", the $5000 rent will go to the neighborhood landlords, benefit the economy of the city; the residents around the site are happy. It's a win-win-win solution. The only looser might be some NGOs who are waiting for the $3.74 million to be allocated to their plate.
.
If we don't trust the family to hand over the $5000 directly, we can let the "support program" to co-sign the rent with landlord (who must be residents of Santa Clara city), and send in the cheque monthly on behalf of the family. And the "support program" can visit the renting family regularly, bi-yearly, that requires the "support program" to visit 1.15 houses every week: 60 houses in 52 weeks. Because all the houses are in Santa Clara city boundaries, it's less than 20 minutes drive every week, basically. With $200,000 yearly salary, I would be happy to do this "support program" job.
If this "support program" needs to be supervised, current government already have position to do this job, we don't need to allocate more money for that.
.
Cut the middle man, benefit the people in need directly. Don't put money in bureaucracy system to feed the rats.
.
If another “low barriers” “interim housing” is still needed to that site with less cost and more help to the people in need, I am still support it. But with the numbers in this report, no, this project don't have my vote.
Ben,
.
I do not think that living near the development is a necessary prequalification for having an opinion on the development.
.
And I will reiterate what I have said before which is that truly concerned criticism works toward making the project better and more successful not preventing it from happening.
.
You may very well be right that the costs are too high. But instead of arguing that to argue that the project should not go forward it should be used to turn more focus on the costs and to rationalize them so that the budget is set appropriately and funds are used efficiently.
.
Finding a problem with a project does not automatically mean the project should be killed. It can mean it should be refined. It is also possible that the project will be refined as the process goes on and numbers quoted are conservatively high.
.
It would also probably be helpful for LifeMoves and the county to more fully detail exactly where all the forecast budget goes. Itemize in greater detail and talk in greater detail about the support services there will be and break down how much they cost.
.
But again the goal should be to work toward a better project not just simply reject the project as last presented.
Hi Buchser,
.
I am saying because I don't own property near the site, I don't have conflict of interest in this topic. I don't care if the real estate value depreciates, let me just say it out loud.
.
You mentioned "the project" several times in this reply and previous replies. I feel like we have different understanding of this word.
.
I got the feeling that when you mentioned "the project", you mean to build a building at that site, to house the people in need.
.
My understanding of "the project" is to house the people in need. The method can be either building a building (I bit my tongue), or subsidizing $5000 rent to the families. I opt to option 2, because it is more cost-effective, according to my calculation. As long as people-in-need have roof over the head, "the project" is completed.
Ben,
.
Your concept of the project is different from mine and different from what it is meant to be.
.
This is a transitional and supportive housing project and shelter is only one part of it. So providing a housing subsidy to make private market housing free does not duplicate the deliverables of the project.
.
In addition to that the providing of subsidies for housing is not necessarily the same as providing housing.
.
And like I said before there is not reason to assume that the budget numbers provided must be what the annual budget must be even if assuming all the expanded services beyond shelter the project is intended to provide.
If you attend Tuesday’s meeting, you will not say things like you did. People oppose because 1) LifeMoves is not a trust-worthy partner to begin with. They have the lowest success rate of their site to help homeless find permanent housing. When asked about reasons, they blame that is because their clients are criminals, drug addicts and mental illness who cannot find jobs to find permanent housing. They never admitted the fact that they are short of service in their “supportive facility” which takes tons of money from the state for their “services” . Their sites are poorly managed, site directors themselves are facing arrest warrant of “sexual assault” of clients. 2) city council member Suds Jain, Anthony Becker , Karen Hardy and Karen ignored all the critical issues raised by the vast majority of the public about the project cost, transparency, “low barrier definition” and more. LifeMoves claims it as “30 family” unit, but each family unit has 3 exterior doors ( very counter-intuitive) and it applies HomeKey funding using 90 single units. So the so-called “30 families” is only a bait for the community. LifeMoves is also cheating HomeKey application with fake information, such as use “7-11” as grocery store, blurs “bus line” with “bus stop”. The whole project is nothing but a corruption to cheat HomeKey funding into their own pockets. The four council members who voted yes have already have their script written. Becker is already reported to accept money from private groups that will benefit from this construction. This suspect with all other three members as well. Homeless is just someone they decided to take advantage of, so do your goodwill.
Sori,
.
How do you know that LifeMoves is not a trustworthy partner and has lowest success rates? What organizations doing similar work are trustworthy and have better success rates?
.
If there are such organizations then maybe we should partners with them and the county to build and run this facility.
.
You do want the facility if it is built and run well do you not? Or are your attacks aimed at defeating any transitional housing project?
.
Where does it say that each unit will have "three exterior doors"? That does not sound plausible and you sound like you did not understand something you read or heard.
.
Nobody is counting a 7-11 as a grocery store. There are at least three supermarkets within a mile radius of the site.
.
I do not know what you think is blurring the line between a bus line and a bus stop but only bus stops are cited as being within a particular radius. The site is a short walk from both El Camino Real and Homestead Road and both of those have major VTA bus lines running along them.
.
I have never seen any report that Anthony Becker has accepted money from private groups that will benefit from this construction. If you are making this accusation you need to provide evidence that it is true.
Buchser, based on your questions, you certainly know very little about the project. If that's true, you may want to do your homework first.
Dan,
.
No it is clear I know a lot and you just employ bad faith rhetoric to argue against people who disagree with you instead of trying to back up your opinions with convincing reasoning and facts.
Suds Jain is a selfish liar who took advantage of communities goodwill and through it into trash- he said the community wants family. That is true, this community wants to help homeless, but DO NOT want to help their corrupted behavior in the name of helping homeless. When community said family, community meant for the site to be screened with criminal background check. But Suds together with Karen who poorly acted with an inappropriate personal story, ignored the safety of those “children” they kept mentioning and through them to live with criminals and drug addicts. Next step is to investigate Karen, Suds and Kathy’s connection with private entities who may have interests in this project. As Becker has already proved to accept money from private groups who are in favor of this project, the other three bad guys are not far from it. It’s all about money. It is purely a corruption. Period.
Sori,
.
You need to do more reading on housing policies in order to understand them better. There is a growing movement to ban criminal background checks and disqualifying people from renting due to criminal backgrounds. This is because this causes homelessness.
.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/01/02/this-bay-area-county-to-be-the-latest-to-ban-criminal-background-checks-for-renters/
.
You do not know whether or not you already have a lot of neighbors who have criminal convictions in their background or have a history of drug use or currently use drugs. Have you checked to see if all the apartment complexes nearby conduct criminal background searches or disqualify applicants based upon criminal convictions?
.
Do you know if they search for signs of past drug use or screen for current drug use?
.
Do you know if homeowners needed to submit to such background checks and controls before being able to buy their homes?
.
I bet you have not checked and you do not know. You have just been assuming what you want just like you are just assuming what you fear with this development.
.
Homelessness is a problem that must be attacked with building of more homes. Not just permanent affordable rental housing but also temporary free housing especially supportive housing. This is a reality whether you like it or not. It is also a reality that such housing for families especially must be near schools and parks and commercial stores and services.
.
That is why this site was selected for this. This site will be used for something like this. Instead of focusing all your time and attention on trying to block any kind of temporary housing you should work to make it better temporary housing.
.
Otherwise you will just be wasting your time and losing the opportunity to make a productive contribution that will help reduce your and your fellow opponents' fears.
I can only imagine that it relates to the elimination of the 4th floor and likely larger units to accommodate families only and no singles or couples.
I'm a member of the public (someone who lives very close to the proposed site) who's been strongly in support of this project since I first heard about it. I think it's a gross over-generalization to say the public didn't find it palatable when a lot of us are strongly in favor.
River,
.
This is a good point you are making. There is no unified common voice to the public in this situation. There are many different people with many different opinions. I think it is fair to say that most people with vocal opinions on the project have negative opinions but there are people like you and me who support it and we are members of the public.
.
David should reconsider his phrasing.
.
He should also reconsider this phrasing "In an almost unheard of display, Council Member Kathy Watanabe voted in opposition to political ally Mayor Lisa Gillmor."
.
I agree that it is very uncommon for Watanabe to not vote the same as Gillmor but her voting differently last night was not a "display." She voted and actually did it in a way that was less a "display" than all the other councilpeople. And she made no display at all about voting differently than Gillmor. She did not mention it and did not make a display of anything notable in doing so.
I also made this comment in response to a piece on the same meeting and development on SantaClaraNews:
.
I thought that Gillmor and Park and Chahal all brought up good points in describing why they were voting against the proposal as presented. I wish they and other opponents focused their criticisms in a way that would lead to their criticisms being taken off the table. For example I agree with Gillmor that it is troubling that there has not been a clear enough answer for how budgeting works after seven years. But I do think that she seems satisfied to have this not answered clearly because it gives her a strong justification to vote against the proposal.
.
Similarly I agree with Park that it is troubling that there has not been a clear enough answer about what barriers there are to entry into the proposed development. The woman from the county talked about some barriers that they do not want to be barriers but did not talk about the issues that people are concerned about when it comes to barriers other than there being a barrier against convicted sex offenders. No discussion of barriers or lack of barriers having to do with history of drug addiction or even current drug use.
.
And there has been no clear answer from the county or Life Moves about the fear that people have that the development being a family development might be a Trojan horse and units end up housing individuals the community would find more threatening if the development is not fully occupied by families.
.
But I did not see true effort or desire from the councilpeople who voted No to push for the project to be adjusted to meet their recommendations. Otherwise they would have listed a very clear set of recommendations and criticism and exactly what they wanted to see instead.
.
For example instead of asking and waiting for a clearer answer of all the different things that could happen after seven years someone who really wants a good project here could ask or propose if it would be possible for the city to change the use of the project to one that is more permanent affordable housing instead of transitional housing. One that charges very affordable rent and does not require ongoing budget subsidy from the city but which still qualified for any federal or state or county funding they have been talking about.
.
I do hope that the council talks about how distracting and annoying the signs of protestors were during the meeting. It is a bad precedent to allow people to be making signs during meetings to hold up as a way of speaking during meetings. That is what public commentary time is for. When people are holding up signs to fill up the camera frame it is very difficult to concentrate on what the actual speaker is saying. And I am sure that it makes it harder for the city council to focus on speakers as well.
I suppose with your thorough analysis, you also noticed that the proposal was changed during a continuation and public testimony wasn't allowed after those significant changes. They also did not list all of the options in the agenda. Brown Act violations.
Park met with the community almost weekly. He had us submit 'what we would accept' which included permanent family housing and his rent to own model as well as sufficient staffing and security.
As you said, the greatest concern is the background checks of the potential tenants. I suppose you have already read the Santa Clara County PIT study thoroughly and recall that it states that ~30% have spent at least one night in jail in the past 12 months (even while California was reducing prison populations and increasing thresholds for felonies), 63% have a psychiatric/emotional condition and 73% have a drug/alcohol abuse condition that affects housing, employment, and independent living status.
The county tries to pretend they didn't know the details of how the population simply gets shifted from Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose to Sunnyvale, Milpitas, and Santa Clara while their backs are turned. I suppose you didn't notice that Milpitas' homeless count went up by over 100 because they are now housing over 100 homeless from Palo Alto and San Jose. The county and LifeMoves also pretended not to notice real incidents happening at LifeMoves Mountain View. If they didn't notice, then they clearly need new leadership.
Thank you for your thorough report of this convoluted, multi-party, multi-million-dollar proposal for an experimental "interim housing" "low barriers" government project for 30 "families" at the Benton/Lawrence intersection. The following points should also be noted about the Special City Council Meeting last night.
First, the City's Director of Community Development, Andrew Crabtree, acknowledged last night that he had previously underreported the $34 million construction costs of this proposed project by $1.5 million (he originally reported them as $32.5 million). But what's $1.5 million between friends?
Second, the Director of the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing, Consuelo Hernandez, told the Council last night (for the first time) that, instead of referring to the full $1,000,000+ cost of each of these 30 "family" units in its submissions to the California State Home Key Fund, the County would be referring to the PER DOOR COST (!!!) of approximately $340,000 because, according to her, each of the "family" units would have three doors. What kind of nonsense is this? The State of California should not be kept in the dark about these very curious calculations (like our poor City was until last night).
Third, while Ms. Hernandez, described the mysterious, ubiquitous phrase, "low barriers", as referring to such things as tenants with dogs, at least Marie Jackson of Life Moves more accurately (perhaps inadvertently) equated the term, "low barriers", with criminal convicts as a part of her explanation for the low success rate at another Life Moves facility. (See Video of Council Meeting at 2:02:56). Thank you, Ms. Jackson.
I think that the Council members who voted for this ridiculously costly, dangerous, highly experimental boondoggle were blinded by a gross, arrogant sentimentality into sanctimoniously disregarding the heartfelt petitions and vital interests of the vast majority of their hardworking, law-abiding neighbors who, after all, are only decently and honorably following the American Dream in the American Way on their own steam.
Cost per door is a very common metric used in residential real estate. There is nothing odd about using that metric though it is true that people who are not knowledgeable about real estate may not be familiar with the term.
Mr. Alum, of the 21 comments on this article up to this point in time (5-4-23, 6:35 PM), 10 of them are from you. It is like you are grading term papers. Incidentally, I got the impression at the hearing that even Ms. Hernandez was not too familiar with the PER DOOR craziness.
John,
.
It is a silly and spurious ad hominem attack you are making as if it is a bad thing for me to care too much about a project that I am voicing my opinion on.
.
It is a common thing in residential real estate development and management to talk about per door cost. You revealed your ignorance of residential real estate development and management by labeling a standard industry metric as "nonsense."
.
It seems you need to do some more homework on basic aspects of this project before you continue to pretend as if you know better than the professionals who have been working on it. Maybe if you do not run another quixotic campaign to become state attorney general you will have enough time to educate yourself properly on the civic matters you pretend to understand well.
All's I know, Mr. Alum, the taxpayers will pay over $1 million per UNIT per "family" (a term that remains largely undefined at this point) in construction costs, NOT counting: (1) the valuable free land; OR (2) the over $100,000+ per year per "family" in "operating costs" (which could be more per "family" if there is not a full occupancy since it sounds like Life Moves will get a total of well over $3 million a year for "operating costs" even if there are less than 30 families). Am I mistaken in any of this, Mr. Alum? If I am correct, how is this not the biggest, most risky, experimental boondoggle our city has ever been confronted with?? With the $100,000 in operating costs per "family" per year ALONE you could give THREE real families rent-free two-bedroom apartments for a year. Is that not totally nonsensical?
John,
.
I also found the construction and ongoing operational costs quoted to be high. I do not recall where it was that I wrote it but somewhere I wrote that I agreed with some concerns raised by Mayor Gillmor and Councilperson Park.
.
I would like to see or hear confirmation that costs previously quoted will remain the same if the facility becomes the scaled down family facility that was last proposed. And I would like to see these costs broken down in a clear and detailed way both construction and operational costs. I also want to know what will happen after the first seven years if the city does not wish to pay for ongoing costs or wants to pay for less for whatever reason.
.
What I have seen from the opponents of projects is talking about objections they have for the purpose of getting the proposal rejected and not to bring up suggestions that will help the project be a better one and win more public support. Opponents of the project raise many reasons why they want the proposal rejected. Raising what they see is wrong but not what concretely and specifically can be done to make it right.
.
I would like to see confirmation of what costs are for this new family housing proposal in terms of both construction and ongoing costs. I would like to see itemization of the costs quoted for construction and ongoing costs. If there are costs that are good to be higher while they can qualify for federal funding then I would like to know that these costs can be scaled down when federal funding runs out and the city and/or the county will foot the bill. If costs are reasonable and we do not have to permanently commit ourselves to a higher level of service than financially makes sense then I will be happy with that aspect of the project.
.
I am also concerned about what the "barriers" are for residency. For example when it comes to the matter of criminal records I do not want more criminals in my neighborhood. I also understand that there are many different types of crimes and there are some that do not indicate greater public safety threat than others. I also understand that in our society if someone is convicted of a crime and serves a sentence then they have paid their debt to society and deserve a chance to rebuild their life. Housing is necessary for this and I do not think it helps anyone for someone to live on the street or in the creeks of my neighborhood because they are not allowed a place in a transitional housing center due to their criminal record.
.
I want to learn more and I am open to listening and having an open mind. I do not believe it is productive or realistic or sensible to keep ranting about "no low barrier" and talking about "criminals" as if all crimes are the same or as if we do not already have plenty of people living in our neighborhood in market rate apartments or houses that have criminal records. And who use drugs.
.
I am not looking for arguments to get the proposal rejected. I am looking to help provide feedback and commentary that will help to make the project a better and more effective one.
The statements made by Consuelo and Greenberg on May 2 regarding “low barrier” were shocking. In previous community meetings they clearly told the community “low barrier” was to bring in people with criminal background, drug addictions, mental illnesses, etc, who are “the more challenging elements of the population”. That’s why the community has been expressing deep concerns. However, on May 2, “low barrier” becomes people with pets!!! LIARS! The community has been lied in every meeting by those people who stand on the stage and control whether people can clap or talk.
Karen, Kathy, and Suds, make decisions for the city of Santa Clara using your intellect rather than your emotions. I am just asking you if a low barrier shelter is going to be safe for families and children? With millions of dollars, you can do a lot for the unhoused population in Santa Clara. What’s the original intended use for the $7M from PLHA? What’s the consequence now for the next few years?
Becker, it is shameful that you are still allowed to vote.
What a corrupted and incapable city council.
Dan,
.
You need to listen more carefully to things because you are showing that you misunderstand what is being said. Consuelo from the county did not claim that "'low barrier' becomes people with pets." She listed a variety of low barriers that they do not want to be barriers and having pets is one that she listed. She did not list precise positions on some other barriers that you and many others care more about such as criminal records or histories of drug use.
.
I think that they want low barriers when it comes to criminal records and histories of drug use because high barriers to those creates homelessness. And many market rate rental apartments do not erect high barriers against these factors anyway or have no feasible way to do so. Have you checked surrounding apartment complexes to see what kind of background checks they do and what barriers they erect and what level the barriers are at?
.
I doubt you have. Have you checked to see what criminal conviction or drug use history disqualifies anyone from buying a house? There are none so I doubt you have. You have no idea which of your housed neighbors have criminal convictions in their background or used to or currently use drugs.
.
And you need to acquaint yourself with the rules of city of Santa Clara city council meetings. We have rules for decorum to maintain a polite and welcoming environment for all speakers. You have the opportunity to speak on site or remotely just like anyone else. You do not have the right to disrupt other speakers with clapping or cheering or distracting other people or blocking their view with signs.
.
If you want to hold a protest then hold it outside of the council chambers or someplace else. Invite the press or stream it on the internet or do whatever you like.
.
But city council meetings have rules so that everyone gets to opportunity to be heard without undue distraction or disruption or intimidation. Learn these rules because they are about not allowing you to control other people's speech not to control your speech.
Buchser, how do you explain the crime rate in Milpitas Hillview Ct increased by 300% within 2 years? It outpaced any apartment complex in Milpitas. Without taking about criminals etc but pets, they intentionally wanted to avoid the truth about low barrier.
Dan,
.
Are you referring to a crime rate or a rate of calls for public services? Can you please cite or reference where this can be found or verified? If crime rates then rates of what crimes are you referring to? Not all crimes are the same.
.
You say that it outpaced every apartment building in Milpitas. Did you check the “crime rate” of every apartment complex in Milpitas? If not then how could you make such an assertion? Did you check the crime rate of any apartment complexes in Milpitas? How many and which ones? What were the crime rates? For what time periods? And for what specific crimes?
.
Do you understand the nature of the proposed Benton and Lawrence project is very different than the Milpitas project? It is not comparable for reasons of proposed resident profile as well as size and density.
.
I do agree that they talked about barriers that were less concerning on purpose. But trying to focus on less controversial barriers is not the same as lying and saying the only barriers they will lower are ones regarding pets which is what you basically wrote. So you should correct that or at least understand the difference.
Leave a Comment
"Have you checked surrounding apartment complexes to see what kind of background checks they do and what barriers they erect and what level the barriers are at?"
Yes. They do background checks because they want to make sure people will pay their rent and won't bring crime into their complex. Employers do background checks as well. If the person doesn't want a background check, they don't have to sign the release. If an apartment owner is desperate, they might rent to someone with a criminal history.
It's why our parents taught us not to break the law.
Sounds like you want ex-cons and people with a history of drug use to live in our neighborhood because you empathize with them.
Do you have a criminal history making it difficult to find an apartment?
NoLowBarrier,
.
Who is this "they" that does background checks? Which apartment complexes did you verify do criminal background checks? Did you ask them what barriers they have regarding criminal backgrounds? What crimes they consider to be disqualifying if any?
.
Which apartment complexes did you check to see perform checks for drug use history? How do they even do that?
.
I doubt you checked with any apartment complexes and are speaking from a position of presumption.
.
As an answer to your silly attempt at an ad hominem attack I do not have difficulty in finding an apartment. I own a home near the site and have for decades. Nobody did a background check on me fo r criminal record or drug use to use these as barriers to stop me from owning my home.
The neighbors are not against helping the homeless. If that were the case, why would we be proposing permanent affordable housing?
The neighbors are AGAINST LOW BARRIER. It's unclear why Consuelo Hernandez suddenly changed the definition of LOW BARRIER from what she and Dr. Greenberg described in every public meeting as 'No Screening for Criminal Background, Drug Use, or Severe Mental Illness that could present a danger to themselves or others' to the council meeting explanation 'Has a Dog, Lacks have proof of identity'.
It's just another example of how frequently the answers change and how hard of hearing they are when it comes to the facts and their ability to take no responsibility. We want to see the Homekey and PLHA funds used wisely, but more importantly, we want to keep the neighborhood safe for all, including future tenants of this project.
The FACTS: Mountain View LifeMoves Interim Housing Homekey Project for FAMILIES and Adults has had more than 260 police incidents in the 18 months it's been open, just for that address, not for the surrounding businesses that have had to hire additional security. Here are some key incidents:
Code
261 Rape=2
273.5 Domestic Violence=1
415 Disturbance =24
422 Death Threats=3
487 Grand Theft=1
488 Petty Theft=1
602L Tresspassing=8
647 Drunk In Public=2
CPSRPT – CPS Cross Report=6 (Child Protective Services)
CIVIL – Civil Standby/General Civil=5
SUSCIRC – Suspicious Circumstances=8
FDASST – Fire Department Assist=5
FOOT – Foot Patrol=31
FIREINFO – Fire Information=108
BOL – Be On the Lookout=1
HS – Health and Safety Code Violation=1
The appear to have fairly low standards for what is acceptable.
One rape is one too many...
It's poor management like this that turn people against providing local housing for the homeless. All of the NGOs are in over their heads, which is why the National Guard and CHP are now helping in SF.
NoLowBarrier,
.
The Mountain View facility is different from the one that is now being proposed for Benton and Lawrence.
.
Your list is a list of "police incidents" or calls to city emergency services. One hundred and eight are listed as "Fire Information" which does not seem to be a call to police much less a police incident.
.
And a call regarding the topic of rape does not mean a rape was committed.
.
Have you compared these numbers against a variety of apartment complexes with one hundred or more units? Which ones did you compare it to and what were the statistics for those complexes? If you did not compare it to a variety of other complexes how do you know the Mt. View LifeMoves created too many calls for public emergency services and by what kind of margin?
Here we go again...'This one will be different. It was during Covid. The data must be wrong. It was just calls to help old people. How do we know it was a REAL RAPE and not a FAKE RAPE?' Seriously?
Dude. Please stop playing the ignorance and victim card. You're smarter than that It is the police call records obtained through a PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST. You are welcome to make the same requests.
If there were 100 calls to a single apartment building for medical help for senior citizens, the state and county would be forcing the facility to provide appropriate care for its residents because it is basically running a senior living facility without proper staffing without a license.
It's just really sad to learn that nonprofits and their supporters continue to be in denial, continue to spout their Pollyanna viewpoints, and somehow convince people they're doing good for our communities...all while taking our donations and taxes.
The only reason Benton will be any different from Mountain View is because we'll be all over their case if they dare bring anything negative to this neighborhood that will reduce the safety and comfort of its residents. One misstep and it will be all over the news, trust me. We'll be watching.
FYI You can run crimemap.com for any apartment complex in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara which is much easier than getting data from MVPD.
Over the same timeframe:
Calabazas Community Affordable Apartments at 3311 Kifer (another mess) = 44 Drugs/Narcotics violations, Assaults, Vandalism, Burglaries.
Regular apartments at Homestead and Lawrence = 4 thefts/vandalism
Regular apartments at Benton and Lawrence = 2 theft/drug
Senior Living Apartments on Knickerbocker = 2 vandalism
So, yes. It appears that Affordable Housing and Interim Housing have a problem, don't they?
NoLowBarrier,
You seem to not understand that a call for a police response is coded for the nature of the call and that does not equate to a crime actually having occurred.
.
But that does not mean that a temporary housing project for homeless people will not demand more use of public emergency services. Of course it will. Thank you for providing comparative data but you really need to be more specific if you want it to be comparative data. "Regular apartments at Homestead and Lawrence" is which complex? And same for the "regular apartments at Benton and Lawrence."
.
Did you listen when LifeMoves explained that the Mt. View population is more singles and is much older and ages of families are much younger? If so then why are you talking about "medical help for senior citizens?" in relation to this project? And do you think there are less calls related to homeless senior citizens if they live on the street?
.
No there are more calls because living on the street is less safe and less healthy. When homeless people get housed they can be safer and more healthy and they need public emergency services less.
.
Please look up calls for public services that are made by and involving people living on the streets. Do these go down when homeless people live in housing like this project instead of living on the streets?
.
The alternative to housing homeless with this project is homeless being homeless on the street. Will that result in more or less calls for public services in the area?
.
You can live in a fantasy world in which homelessness just goes away without special housing for the homeless. But it is a fantasy and if you want to really help then you need to be realistic and pragmatic. You also should not be selfish and never want anything to be done anywhere close to you. This makes no sense because there are homeless people living very close to this site anyway.
Please remember that government leaders were responsive to some public objections by making changes like housing families rather than individuals and reducing the height from 4 to 3 stories. After discussion, during which a couple of Santa Clara City Council members expressed feeling conflicted, the project was *narrowly* approved in a 4-3 vote. If you're still opposed, you might want to thank the 3 who voted the way you wanted them to.
Meanwhile, people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest (apologies to Paul Simon). For those who question the trustworthiness and management abilities of LifeMoves, please note that it is an excellent non-profit charitable organization. It has earned a 4-star (top) Charity Navigator ranking. This includes a 94% rating for the Accountability & Finance (highest weighted) beacon, which provides an assessment of a charity's financial health (financial efficiency, sustainability, and trustworthiness) and its commitment to governance practices and policies. It also includes a 93% rating for the Culture & Community beacon, which provides an assessment of the organization's culture and connectedness to the community it serves.
LifeMoves has acknowledged problems at the Mountain View site, stating they were pandemic-related and have been resolved. Maybe that's something to be researched - along with the status of their other project locations. (If providing statistics, keep in mind that they can be misleading and be ready to back them up with more facts.)
The vision of LifeMoves is "a community where all our neighbors have a home." To achieve this, its mission is to "provide interim housing and supportive services for homeless families and individuals in Silicon Valley to help them rapidly return to stable housing and achieve long-term self-sufficiency." We now have the opportunity to give them a chance to succeed.
How are rapes, domestic violence, death threats, and child protective services calls at LifeMoves Mountain View related to Covid? I do hope their executives, board of directors, and donors pay very close attention to the crime at and around their facilities. They're placing a facility in the middle of a neighborhood of high tech workers and executives this time, not in the outskirts or a light industrial area where there are few voters. Note how they don't dare place these facilities in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos Hills, or Palo Alto hills.
The fact is, there is no guarantee that it will be 'all families'. They are building a flex layout, so that if they don't have enough families, they will house adults. 30 family units or 90 single/couple units. 30 units. 90 doors. That's their tactic to get the most funds out of Homekey. Read the details.
Dan,
.
Are you referring to a crime rate or a rate of calls for public services? Can you please cite or reference where this can be found or verified? If crime rates then rates of what crimes are you referring to? Not all crimes are the same.
.
You say that it outpaced every apartment building in Milpitas. Did you check the "crime rate" of every apartment complex in Milpitas? If not then how could you make such an assertion? Did you check the crime rate of any apartment complexes in Milpitas? How many and which ones? What were the crime rates? For what time periods? And for what specific crimes?
.
Do you understand the nature of the proposed Benton and Lawrence project is very different than the Milpitas project? It is not comparable for reasons of proposed resident profile as well as size and density.
.
I do agree that they talked about barriers that were less concerning on purpose. But trying to focus on less controversial barriers is not the same as lying and saying the only barriers they will lower are ones regarding pets which is what you basically wrote. So you should correct that or at least understand the difference.
MOUNTAIN VIEW POLICE PUBLIC RECORDS FOR 2566 LEGHORN in MOUNTAIN VIEW. There were 1-2 incidents per year before LifeMoves. It jumped to 90 in 2021 (starting in May, so only 6 months) and 140 in 2022. Submit a records request. You'll receive all of the details, including case numbers.
NoLowBarrier,
.
Looking up data is one thing and understanding it is a different matter. Selectively picking what data you cite and how you present it to make a rhetorical point is yet another matter.
.
First of all it is deceptive to present calls for public services as if they are crimes. Sometimes you do make the difference clear and sometimes you do not.
.
Secondly it is deceptive to cite gross number of calls to insinuate a threat to public safety. Calls for medical intervention are not matters of concern when it comes to public safety from violent crime or even property crime.
.
Thirdly it is deceptive to present calls tied to a complex with mostly single units and many more of them to a complex with far fewer family units. You are comparing apples to oranges.
.
Fourthly it is deceptive to compare public safety calls tied to an address before and after a commercial industrial facility is replaced with a transitional housing complex. Of course public safety calls will be many times higher at that one address or even directly neighboring addresses.
.
But what is the net change in calls in the wider area where people would have been living on the streets and in creeks if they were not living in transitional housing?
.
Does moving people from living in outdoor encampments to living indoors result in a net increase or decrease in public safety calls? Have you checked this? Have you thought about this?
.
Or do you not care about this because no matter what you just do not want anything of this nature to be in your personal backyard or near it?
.
You need to be honest and stop hiding behind cherry picked data presented to cover over the fact that you would rather have thirty families with children living on the streets or in totally inappropriate group shelters. You do not care about the certain positive improvement it makes in the lives of these families and focus only on the possible negative impacts you think it might make upon you and your family.
On the contrary, we're concerned for the safety of the children that would be placed in a building with unscreened adults. They'll have to do some screening to ensure no Megan's/Jessica's law issues.
Here is the link to the records request system. Hope it helps. https://cityofmountainviewca.nextrequest.com/requests/new
NoLowBarrier,
.
No your main concern is not the welfare of children if they are other people's children.
.
Because if this project has more stringent standards than market rate apartments you will still have other objections you will cite as reasons why it must not be built.
.
You might believe your own lines but it is clear to other people that the opposition to this just finds reasons to oppose the project and does not try to find ways to improve the project. And this cynical pretending to be very concerned about the welfare of homeless children makes this clear.
.
It is obvious because the alternative to this facility will not be better housing with higher barriers but living in a group shelter with no or lower barriers or living on the street or in a vehicle that is much less safer in many ways. As Councilperson Jain said he is concerned about the safety of children living in cars and tents. You are not helping him find solutions to improve the safety of children in Santa Clara who are living in cars and tents or in group shelters.
.
Councilperson Park already told opponents of the project that it is not productive to only oppose the project. If you want to make it better or even just want to minimize impact on you then you need to be a productive part of the process. And Park even voted against this project. But opponents did not listen and thought their best bet was to just be loud and angry in showing their disapproval.
.
That did not work and it passed four to three.
.
All I saw even at the final meeting were opponents waving signs reading No No No No. Just blanket opposition for any reason that could be grasped. I saw more coordination amongst opponents to hold up signs to fill up the camera frame than I saw in presenting a unified set of concrete standards that would win end to the group's opposition.
.
It is not too late to do this. You should do this instead of just trying to fight what has been approved or even to try to argue that this be turned into permanent affordable housing.
Park also said "You'd have buy-in from the majority of the opponents if you'd address the concerns about safety and raise the bar to medium (yet to be defined). But you didn't offer that after months of requests from thousands in the community." It will be blood on your and their hands when something happens. Let's just hope we're wrong. Based on the police and EMS calls, and Dr. Greenberg's comments about the number of elderly, LifeMoves should consider partnering with a licensed skilled nursing facility or home care service to provide 24hr senior care for vulnerable residents. One LVN on site for one shift is not sufficient. Senior care is more than $5k/month/resident, which is about how much funding they're getting per person. Plus, 24 hour well-trained security at the site.
NoLowBarrier,
.
You are still fixated on trying to argue against the proposal for Benton and Lawrence based upon criticism of another different facility that encounters a different set of problems to overcome.
.
The current Benton and Lawrence proposal is for transitional housing for families and not senior individuals.
.
Opponents would be more effective if they presented a realistic set of requests and not try to fight any kind of transitional housing facility whatsoever. I have attended or watched every single community meeting and I have not even seen a single opponent present a coherent and realistic standard they personally would be comfortable with.
.
Only statements of what they do not want. Not a plan they would agree with that is also realistic. "Permanent affordable housing" is not realistic and is also not a plan for standards or barriers to residency.
.
Market rate apartment complexes do not refuse to rent to any applicants with any sort of criminal record. Market rate apartments cannot screen for mental illness. Market rate apartments cannot screen for drug use.
What's fascinating is the only tools you have in your arsenal is to lob verbal attacks at the opponents rather than face or discuss the facts and solve the issues. Sounds like a few other community organizing efforts your group has been up to. There are plenty of good-paying jobs out there but you're going to have to study and work hard.
NoLowBarrier,
.
If you think that identification of the logical flaws in your argument and pointing out what you need to do different in order to make productive input that will help reduce objections to the project that I think reflects more upon your mindset than anything else.
.
Your mindset also seems to be reflected in your nonsensical assumption that I am part of some "community organizing group." I am not a part of any sort of group when it comes to this housing proposal. I am a longtime home owner who lives in the vicinity and also a longtime Santa Clara business owner. I do not need anyone to give me a job. I employ many others. And I do not automatically look down on those who do not have good paying jobs and who struggle to be able to afford to live in this area.
.
It is funny that you think others are not facing or discussing the facts and solving issues when you and other opponents of the project never faced facts or came to discuss all the relevant facts and thus did not solve your central issue of preventing the approval of a project you oppose.
.
You could be more productive and successful in your own self interest. But that would require listening to good advice and absorbing criticism instead of seeing it as a verbal attack.
I'm not sure what king of business you own, but it doesn't appear to involve data analytics. You seem to have expertise in this matter yet haven't shown any facts. You've only repeated the same information you hear from the nonprofits, the cities/counties that fall for the misinformation, and various news outlets who have been instructed to support the homeless effort, no matter what the negative impact might be on the community. For some reason, the homeless children are more important than our children. For some reason, you believe the nonprofits, county, and news stories, but you don't believe the raw data. The KQED 'study' doesn't list all types of calls/incidents and merges data from all sites into one graph, hiding the multiple locations that have had increases. They have picked and chosen only what makes them look good. They're only listing graffiti, dumping, quality of life, and medical calls. They're not listing any of the incidents we see when we pull the data, such as assaults, rape, grand theft, death threats. In our view, it's a cover up organized by various nonprofits who want to show themselves as saviors and to get the $25-40M in funding per project. The nonprofits are paid by our tax dollars. They are our vendors. They need to be transparent and explain how they will ensure NONE of the issues will repeat in our neighborhood. There is no oversight, except from the public who is raising theses facts. As I said, we'll be watching closely and every misstep will be well-documented.
"First of all it is deceptive to present calls for public services as if they are crimes. Sometimes you do make the difference clear and sometimes you do not." Not sure what to tell you. They are raw data from incidents (911 calls or from patrols), much like the incidents presented by Milpitas Chief of Police. It would be great if you have time to investigate each case, scrub the list, and let us know the outcomes. There were only 4 incidents from Jan 2019 to April 2021. The facility opened in May 2021.
2566 Leghorn Mountain View May 2021-Feb 2023
Incident Type
1021 Phone Call=2
1033 Alarm=2
1062 Subject Possibly Wanted =2
1065 Missing Person=4
10851Stolen Vehicle=3
1154 Suspicious Vehicle=1
1182 Accident=2
1195 Car Stop=1
261 Rape=2
273.5 Domestic Violence=1
415 Disturbance =24
422 Death Threats=3
487 Grand Theft=1
488 Petty Theft=1
602L Tresspassing=8
647 Drunk In Public=2
#N/A=3
CPSRPT – CPS Cross Report=6
PR – Public Relations=9
CIVIL – Civil Standby/General Civil=5
SUSCIRC – Suspicious Circumstances=8
FOUND – Found Property=1
FDASST – Fire Department Assist=5
SERVMIS – Miscellaneous Service=7
FU – Follow Up=2
FOOT – Foot Patrol=31
FIREINFO – Fire Information=108
SPECIAL – Special Assignment=1
WELCHK – Welfare Check=6
FCRIME – Financial Crime=1
NR-MV – MVFD No Response=1
INFO - Information=1
BOL – Be On the Lookout=1
ATC – Attempt to Contact=2
HS – Health and Safety Code Violation=1
NoLowBarrier,
.
My point was that you are not clear about whether you are presenting a list of crimes or of codes for calls for public emergency services. At one point you stated "one rape is one too many" but is the "261 Rape=2" on your list indicating that two rapes were perpetrated at that Milpitas facility during the time span you indicate? Or does the "261 Rape=2" refer to something else other than two perpetrations of rape?
.
Were they calls for public emergency services that were coded as "261 Rape" because something to do with a rape was stated by the caller? Were they allegations of rape? What happened when first responders went and checked out the call? Was there a report of rape taken in by police officers? If so then was there a formal investigation or an arrest or a trial or a conviction?
.
You also stated that there were "260 police incidents" in the time span and presumably this is the total number of entries on your list. What does "FIREINFO – Fire Information=108" indicate? Is it something that indicated a response by Milpitas police or Milpitas fire department?
.
I was trying to say that it is not clear what evidence you are presenting and also how you are interpreting them or what their significance is.
.
If you believe what you found is statistical evidence of much greater danger to public safety due to the opening of the LifeMoves Milpitas facility you need to do a better and clearer job of presenting and describing your evidence.
.
In addition to that since the nature of the Benton and Lawrence facility is extremely different from the Milpitas one you need to show people how it is that you are not comparing apples to oranges.
The data is for 2566 Leghorn, the address of the LifeMoves Mountain View interim housing facility for families and adults from May 2021 to Feb 2023. We have all of the data and can assure you they are separate incidents with associated case numbers. The Benton facility will have 90 units. Their goal is to place families, but if they don't have enough families, they will house adults. They're not screening for criminal history, warrants, drug use, identification, or serious mental health issues. Homeless people have babies, too. There are also several calls for Child Protective Services in the data (CPSRPT). They need appropriate staffing at those facilities.