CORRESPONDENCE - 85B - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Systems Based Approach Analysis to Optimization and Risk Management for all Stake Holders, By Daniel Jauregui, August 1, 2014 If the point is to search for an optimal place for this new facility, the intent should be to mininuze risk for all stakeholders, and maximize the opportunity for success for those being served by the new facility. At first glance, there doesn't appear to be any risk mitigation measures in place. Pedestrian Children/Adolescents: recovering addicts and homeless people, sometimes, out of desperation or compulsion, do unfortunate things. A twice -daily stream of child pedestrians (often unsupervised) provides convenient targets of opportunities. At best, this risk serves to make parents /guardians /school administrators uneasy about the facility's presence. Recovering Addicts/Homeless: the facility's proximity to known disadvantaged/ struggling areas (Minnie St, East Side, etc.) doesn't exactly make this the optimum location for folks looking to improve themselves. What natural advantage(s), besides land and a building, does this location provide? Local property/business owners: It is reasonable to say that homelessness and drugs abuse do very little to boost local business' aesthetic, desirability and ultimately, profitability, even if that presence is for the well- meaning purpose of recovery. It is very doubtful whether local business /property owners were consulted for their opinions /thoughts regarding this project. If the situation is not optimal for the children/students, the recovering population or local property/business owners, then where does the urgency for this project come from? The only other stakeholders in this scenario: the personnel associated with this property, they being the tenant and the land/building owner and team. One would think that someone interested in providing people help to those who need it, would be more proactive in securing community support for this type of charitable and altruistic venture. That makes the absence of such proactivity suspect. Either: - Either they're poor project planners, administrators and operators (in which case, why do we want them running something that people depend on ?) - They lack funds, means or method for "spreading the word." (How likely is that ?) - They want to get this done before someone can object (if everything is on the level) - They want to get this done before someone finds them out (if everything is not on the level) There's a lack of transparency on the part of Santa Ana City and County Elected Officials. The community deserves to know what's coming and what's going to be impacting them. I understand that there is rarely a place where one can say "oh hey, let's put homeless and recovering addicts over here, out of the way, where we can't see them and where they won't bother anybody." That's very much a cold - hearted and unrealistic approach. However, it's not much better to say "let's put these people here before anyone finds out." It's probably best to say, "Let's pull together and see how we can make this best work, without putting an unreasonable burden on any one stakeholder."