photo Kristin Lam, capradio news
Thank you to all who attended our rally last night.
Please see abc10 news article which contains the full statement from the CRH at link here:
See letters below to the Mayor and City Council. It is our sincere hope that the prevention of repeat victimization of foster children, and the protection of all children is on the forefront of every council member’s mind as they vote today.
Good morning,
Today you vote on the plan to convert the former Discovery Science Museum into a homeless shelter. It is our continued hope that you will vote “No” on this deeply flawed plan.
We held a “Rally for Kids” last night, across the street from the Children’s Receiving Home. By all accounts it was an excellent event, filled with optimism and hope that we could all come together to reach our shared goal of protecting the children of our community while simultaneously helping solve the epidemic of homelessness in the region. We secured a wide variety of donations for the Children’s Receiving Home, which will be delivered today.
Sadly, only one of you from City Council showed up. We had hoped for more engagement from the City Council, and invited all of you to this event, as well as many others, to discuss our concerns regarding the placement of this facility, sandwiched between a park playground and the Receiving Home, but as par for the course, you’ve ignored the people who will bear the brunt of this decision. Frustrating that almost none of you are willing to make the case that this is a good idea, directly to the people it will affect the most.
We saw the Mayor’s response to our rally on the evening news. Your argument was basically that we can’t rely on our instincts, which universally tell us this is a terrible idea, but that we just have to say “yes” because, well, because what? You never made that argument. How weak.
I’ve lived in Sacramento for the better part of 30 years, and sadly, I am watching the culmination of years of poor leadership potentially take root right down the street from my home. I’ve been a Neighborhood Watch Coordinator for over 100 families for over 15 years, working to help keep my neighborhood safe from crime. It saddens me to see what has become of this city, and I, along with many others, hold our elected officials responsible for that decay. You adopt policy after policy that continually worsen things on the ground, but it is as if you never leave your offices to go see what the effects are. For example, just the concept of a 24/7 shelter at the Auburn Blvd site has resulted in an influx of transients, some of whom have already accosted young girls who were on their way home from school! It hasn’t even opened yet, and the problems we all know are coming have started.
When (not if) that happens, and it goes very, very badly, the responsibility will be yours. Will you have the courage to face those families?
My neighbors and I all hope you have the courage to trust your instincts and vote “NO” on this plan.
Sincerely,
John C. Hearne
Hello,
My name is Aimee Williams. I am a resident of the Arden-Arcade community. I have 20 years
experience in the social services field, working specifically with people who suffer from chronic and severe mental illness, the unhoused, and transitional aged foster youth. I have dedicated my life to helping our communities most vulnerable populations. I also know from experience that the vast majority homeless people are good and decent.
That being said, I VEHEMENTLY oppose Mayor Steinberg’s plan to implement a 24/7 homeless triage shelter directly next to the Children’s Receiving Home. The Receiving Home is where children go when first removed from their home by Child Protective Services. This is one of the most traumatic experiences a foster youth faces. It is our moral and ethical obligation to protect children above ANYONE else.
Let me take a moment to explain what “triage” means in this setting. The triaging process is the time when clients are screened to see if they are appropriate for services. The new homeless clients are completely unknown to staff. An initial assessment will be completed, often by staff who have limited experience and education working with this population. Because the shelter will be open to walk ins, literally ANYONE is able to enter.
I have a few questions for the Mayor:
1. At what point is the background check completed?
The proposal states that staff will screen for sex offenders, but what about other offenders with violence on their record? Will they also be exempt from receiving services?
What is your plan for clients who don’t qualify because they are sex offenders?
Will they just walk out of the triage center, back on the streets, left to loiter around the Children’s Receiving Home? There is no plan for addressing this. People will come to the Arden Arcade area simply to receive services that they may not even qualify for. The location of the Children’s Receiving Home will be known to all.
2. Why doesn’t your plan include extra law enforcement patrolling the community surrounding the area?
The proposal states that “guests will not be permitted to leave the property after nightly intake is completed...”, however the very next sentence states “If guests insist on leaving, they will not be allowed back until the next day”.
Essentially, this plan provides services and respite to guests during the day, and allows them to leave at night to participate in any activities they may choose. This can, and WILL, in many circumstances, including loitering, crime and substance abuse at all hours of the night in the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
3. Why aren’t drug tests being administered both upon entry AND randomly? Conveniently, the proposal assures that “drug sales and use will not be allowed on the property”, but it doesn’t mention drug testing. This is because the model they operate under (Housing first), doesn’t allow drug testing. Will staff be making decisions based on intuition?
4. How far should a “good neighbor policy” reach? Proponents of this plan continuously preach about the “good neighbor policy”. They vow to keep “the area around the program” clean and secure. The “area around the program” is defined as “all public property within 25’ surrounding the program”. TWENTY FIVE FEET. 25’ is the length of a small city bus. They are not assuring that any area outside of that 25’ will be cared for.
5. Are foster children less important than kids coming from traditional homes? The city of Sacramento says that homeless shelters are not recommended to be placed near schools, because children are present. This shows that collectively, we DO understand the risks posed by placing shelters near children. We must then ask: Why is it ok to put a shelter next to abused and neglected children? Is it because they have less advocacy?
This plan is unforgivably irresponsible. These children deserve, at a minimum, to be brought to an environment that is clean, safe, quiet and secure. Proponents of the plan are going to talk about the Children’s Home being a “locked” facility. The fact is that children run away, especially under immense emotional duress. Staff is not allowed to restrain the children because it would add to the psychological trauma they are already plagued with.
I am not here to just complain. I have concrete, feasible solutions that will help both the children and the homeless problem:
1. Make this a Women and Children’s Homeless Shelter or a shelter for victims of domestic violence. This will immediately alleviate risks to the kids next door.
2. Require background checks be conducted for all clients prior to entry. Doing so will give valuable information re: what type of services are needed, as well as WHERE those services should be administered.
3. Mandate drug testing. If someone tests positive, offer treatment. Do not allow any participant to simply walk out the door and back into our community.
4. Lastly, have all triage centers located DOWNTOWN, away from residential neighborhoods. Triage centers have been proven to be uniformly more successful when located in an urban setting, close to resources and transportation. By placing the shelter in a residential location, you are setting the clients up for failure. This can be avoided.
Mayor Steinberg, if you do not take into consideration the communities’ concerns, you will be responsible when something happens to one of the children. Without proper guidelines in place, inevitably there will be negative, possibly dangerous consequences, including city liability.
Do the right thing and use this space as a Women and Children’s Homeless Shelter or for victims of domestic violence. You will have a positive impact on the homeless problem and will show that you actually DO care about the children. I implore the community to continue putting immense pressure on the Mayor and City Council to veto this proposal immediately.
CHILDREN COME FIRST. Thank you for your time
Council Member Vang,
Today I implore you to vote against the conversion of the Discovery Science and Nature Museum into a homeless shelter. This is not an instinctual rejection but rather a calculated opposition.
Today, like so many days before it and many yet to come, is a day of choices. Much like all of the days of choices already come and past, this one too will require you to examine the facts, weight the options, and shoulder the consequences. Those consequences will be, and in no particular order, increased drug usage, human trafficking, violent crime, crimes against women, and perhaps most abhorrent, reduced safety for children at two schools and a receiving home; Pasadena Avenue Elementary, Mira Loma High School, and the Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento. These are not arbitrary consequences, in fact, based on the wealth of sociological and criminological data that we all have access to, these should considered expected outcomes. Unfortunately, they have already come to be. Young girls have been accosted on their way home from school. Think of your daughters.
I ask you now, how can you possibly rest while such a clear threat to children is being introduced? How can such outcomes be tolerable? How can you convince yourself that it is reasonable?
You cannot.
You know it and we know it. However, there is a difference between you and us. We have the courage to voice our concerns and take a stand for the safety and well-being of children in our community. Isn’t that also your purview as a representative of the people in this republic?
Today I ask you not to vote against a homeless shelter, but rather vote in favor of public safety and the welfare of children.
May you have the instincts and courage to do what you know to be right.
Justin M. Nicholson
Former Student of Pasadena and Mira Loma Schools
Dear Council Members and Supervisors,
In 1968 I was taken to the Receiving Home by Police Officers for protective custody from my Mother. She started drinking after my father passed away in 1967 and while on her binges was abusive and escalated to her pointing a gun at me. While she held the gun on me she went to sit down, staggered, and it was my avenue to escape. I ran through the front door screen, and to a neighbors house. The police were called and they took me to the Receiving Home.
Through the years the Receiving Home has been my pet charity. My kids and I have donated clothes, games, toys, and computers. While working for Lyon Real Estate I nominated the Receiving Home to be a recipient of the Lyon Cares charitable annual donation.
Clearly, the Receiving Home is near and dear to me. That is why I am writing as someone who has been in the Receiving Home and being put on family probation it helped resolve issues with my Mother and I was released back to her. I consider myself fortunate that I have made a success of my life and have been blessed to have wonderful and inspirational mentors. I didn’t give up.
I am begging you to please understand that those kids in the Receiving Home need positive influence. They are there not because they are bad kids, they are kids in a bad situation. The location for a shelter immediately next door the Receiving Home is a terrible idea on many levels. If you have not inspected the site, please do so. The 12 foot drive between the properties is open and the kids who would play outside will be witness to all that comes with a shelter.
Moreover, this was to be a center for cooling or winter weather, which that now has changed. There was to be a 3 Million dollar grant to renovate Renfree Park which was home to many great baseball games and family gatherings. Now that grant is at risk as well.
I understand that something needs to be done to alleviate the homeless problem. I suggest something along the lines of the City of Hope in Texas. It has been quite successful. As for what once was a great place to take your kids, The Discovery Museum, I suggest it be restored to be in line with helping at risk kids, after school programs, sports programs that could tie in with the restoration of Renfree Park.
As a Real Estate Broker, I am aware that a marijuana facility must be 1000 yards away from a school. I fear that having non vetted persons immediately next door to children is unconscionable. I am speaking from the standpoint of a girl who once was in the Receiving Home and as a Grandmother whose Granddaughter was assaulted by a homeless person while attending a soccer game. Please do not put this home next door to the kids. They need all of the positive reinforcement they can get especially because they are at the Receiving Home to be protected. It is our duty to make sure that happens.
Lillian Fulton