CORRESPONDENCE - 85A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Tim Johnson < Sent: Monday, July 02, 2018 3:12 PM To: eComment Cc: Solorio, Jose; Pulido, Miguel; Sarmiento, Vicente; Martinez, Michele; Benavides, David; Villegas, Juan; Tinajero, Sal; Kaka, Hafsa Subject: RE: Agenda Item 85A- Perm Supportive Housing Categories: Correspondence Below is an emailed comment regarding agenda item 85A which has been continued a few times. I am resubmitting it in order to be sure it is considered when discussed at tomorrow's meeting: Mayor, Mayor Pro -Tem, Council Members, and Homeless Services Manager Ms. Kaka ...Thank you for taking up the very important issue of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) with your agenda item 85A tonight with regards to directing staff to prepare an emergency ordinance on PSH. First, I am appreciative that you recognize housing is an issue for the chronically homeless. Secondly, I appreciate that you feel that Santa Ana does have a responsibility to address the housing needs of those who are living on the streets. Thirdly, as you are likely aware having a plan Is critically important in securing available funds and there hopefully will be an opportunity for the City of Santa Ana to compete for and receive a significant portion of those funds. The issue that you will be discussing is very important to not only the homeless but the residents of Santa Ana who do not struggle securing a warm bed, a locking door, and security. As such, I pray that your group makes a wise choice and has an open and compassionate heart. PSH is a win-win all around for all stakeholders but especially the homeless and also the residents who are currently experiencing quality of life issues. PSH is a very important in providing for those who need it most. There are a lot of myths surrounding PSH and the impact on surrounding neighborhoods including increased crime, increased law enforcement needs, decreased property values, and increased litter, increased drug usage, increased costs and more. Most of these can be summarized as quality of life issues and more importantly most of these quality of life items truly are myths. Most of them are not backed by data but instead can be debunked through data as shown through both the UCI Cost Study and the Grand Jury Report. Property values do not seem to be impacted and depending on the location and the existing property acquired, there may actually be an increase. Criminal behavior actually drops significantly with PSH compared to the behavior of those who are unsheltered. Drug usage often eventually drops as those who were previously homeless receive needed services, health services and begin to not feel they need drugs and alcohol to cope with the stresses of life. PSH can actually be a benefit to Santa Ana residents' quality of life when done properly. An integral aspect of PSH must be public education. We need to learn from the errors of other cities and the County in when they discuss homelessness. Public relations and education begins now and has to be part of any plan to be successful for all the stakeholders. As part of the PSH plan, I believe that the City needs to involve hospitals, non -profits and private business partnerships. The UCI cost study shows that the overall cost of providing PSH to the chronically homeless is significantly less expensive than what we are currently doing. However, their likely is a cost shift. For example, a hospital's cost may go down because emergency room visits will drop once the homeless are in PSH, however our own City's cost may actually go up. We need to be able to engage the hospitals such as St. Joseph's, CHOC, UC Irvine, OC Global Medical Center, and others to where by providing PSH we can reallocate funds to where it is a win for both the City and the hospitals. By the City having a plan for PSH, we should be partnering with the hospitals because their costs will be reduced thereby increasing their profits. They are businesses and should see the benefit of this return on investment.