City Hall’s beleaguered “Real Change, Not Spare Change” campaign was quietly put to rest last week by the Santa Barbara City Council after a two-year experiment that rarely showed much sign of life. The campaign had been designed with all the best of intentions. It would give residents and visitors alike an alternate vehicle for low-budget philanthropy while actively discouraging donations to panhandlers. On paper, it looked great. Santa Barbara’s Redevelopment Agency had committed to spending up to $75,000 — via the Downtown Organization — to get the word out and educate the public. Business owners and shopkeepers, upset by the number of panhandlers, would post well-marked donation boxes. People moved to help the unfortunate could do so by giving to the Casa Esperanza Homeless Shelter — and not street people — and the shelter management would spend the money to hire outreach workers trained to connect the homeless with social services.
In practice, the program never had much support from the business community. As of this June, only eight businesses were posting donation boxes in their premises. During the entire lifespan of Real Change, only 25 businesses signed up. What shop owners wanted instead was a tough new ordinance that would target aggressive panhandlers. But to get one, they had to accept an alternative giving program. That was the political quid pro quo required by the previous City Council. Otherwise, liberal ministers and homeless-rights advocates would have pitched a fit. In the end, the business community got a new panhandling ordinance and the liberals got “Real Change.” Both proved busts.
Since its inception, the “Real Change” program went through $58,500 of the $75,000 that City Hall budgeted for outreach and education. It generated $7,000 in donations for outreach workers.
To date, maybe three citations have been issued under the new aggressive panhandling measure. Legally, there’s a big difference between aggressively panhandling and sitting on a park bench holding a sign that asks for money. The City Attorney remains convinced there’s no constitutionally sound way to prohibit such behavior. Since its inception, the “Real Change” program went through $58,500 of the $75,000 that City Hall budgeted for outreach and education. It generated $7,000 in donations for outreach workers. Maybe it could have been more successful had donation devices been put out on State Street. Some toyed with placing specially retrofitted parking meters on the street for just that purpose. But that idea found little favor with members of the Historic Landmarks Commission. In the end, it might not have mattered.
In part because of budget constraints, Casa Esperanza no longer can afford to hire any outreach workers at all. In the midst of all this, however, some initiatives still hold out hope. In exchange for not opposing the aggressive panhandling ordinance, homeless advocates also insisted that City Hall increase the number of detox beds available to the homeless. Casa Esperanza had — and for the time being still has — six beds, but that’s a challenging environment in which to get clean and sober. The city’s Redevelopment Agency provided the funds for the Housing Authority to purchase a small home on Placido Street — by Figueroa and Castillo — which is now being remodeled so that the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse can run it. In the meantime, Casa Esperanza is shipping women in search of detox services to the Good Samaritan shelter in Lompoc. As a practical matter, this has freed up three additional beds at the Casa. Given the keening dearth of affordable detox facilities, these additions are huge.
These were among the more tangible highlights — or lowlights — during the City Council’s discussion on its approach toward homelessness last week. With the new council majority more worried about “enabling” the homeless than helping them, a subcommittee had taken a sharp look at Casa Esperanza’s free lunch program designed to draw “service resistant” homeless into the orbit of social services. Many of the shelter’s neighbors complained the food program drew a large cast of drunks, drug addicts, and drifters into the Milpas corridor. Out of this sprang the Milpas Community Association (MCA) — led by Sharon Byrne — which lobbied City Hall for a much tougher form of love.
But even those councilmembers most skeptical about the lunch program concluded no alternative sites made sense. To operate a food truck, as was suggested, would cost $250,000 a year. Rather than hiring six new cops — as the Milpas Community Association demanded — the council voted to dip into its Redevelopment Agency funds to hire an additional restorative policing officer (there are now two) to help get the homeless off the street and into the proper treatment program. In addition, the council approved hiring three community outreach workers to make sure that those in need got connected with the available services. And finally, the council agreed to hire six new social hosts to walk State Street, Milpas Street, and the Waterfront to help keep a lid on transient-related crime.
Since neither the hosts nor the outreach workers have been hired, it’s too soon to gauge their success. Byrne, now running for council, and the Milpas Community Association have decried these measures as too little too late. Until Byrne decided to run for office, she enjoyed collegial relations with the council’s new conservative majority. But when MCA president Alan Bleeker delivered an unhappy earful to the council last Tuesday, he got no traction with his former allies. That stood in stark contrast to the open arms with which that same majority had received MCA’s messages in recent months.
Finally, the council voted to fuse many of the major enterprises relating to homelessness into one superagency. Driving this consolidation was a concern to reduce duplication of effort and increase efficiency. What form this new entity takes remains to be seen. But given that 67 percent of all homeless live within the City of Santa Barbara and that most of the funding for services is provided by the County of Santa Barbara, it’s a good bet these two governmental entities will be directing the new show.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace




Previous Month



Comments
Oh I only give money at a business when I get a good product in return; like a meal, coffee or a donut.
And I do give directly at times to homeless. I always feel they can spend my hard earned money more honestly and efficiently than many of the local businesses I have had to deal with over the years. One recent homeless request was for adult diapers, while they were on sale at CVS.
And it is the governments jobs to fund and provide social services, not that I don't mind partnership with secular non-profit organizations.
And it is time to stop this merry-go-round with our right-wing tendencies. The police are for law enforcement, not for beating up on the least among us or as we call it 'restorative policing.' Social services should be provided for by well trained, well funded and dedicated social services agencies.
And we would be much safer on the streets if the we would take those 3 restorative policing officers and had them enforcing motor vehicle code enforcement (that's probably you.) There is a lot of motor vehicle dis-order out there.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 22, 2011 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I do give directly at times to homeless. I always feel they can spend my hard earned money more honestly and efficiently than many of the local businesses I have had to deal with over the years"
Seriously? Oh, right. You mean the honest and efficient spending they do in the local liquor stores and the neighborhood tweek dealer. Don, what you seem to forget is, when those businesses that you so despise take your money in return for a good or service, they're paying the taxes that ultimately pay for your precious social programs. When you give money to one of our local urine soaked urban campers, it generally ends up a puddle on the corner of State and Gutierrez.
"it is the governments jobs to fund and provide social services"
Since when? The New Deal? I hate to break it to you, but the government doesn't "fund" social services. We do. I would prefer to chose to whom I'm giving my money, and not have it wasted on yet another government bureaucracy ran by extortive public sector unions. Don, you keep forgetting one of the most favored lefty whack job mantras; "pro-choice". Oh, wait! I forgot. "Pro-choice" is only applicable to one thing when it comes to libs. Never mind!
waz (anonymous profile)
September 22, 2011 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
some of these people are sick. There is an overwhelming urge to provide pills to people in this country, even children, but there is no profit incentive to help the poor except through booze and alcohol.
spacey (anonymous profile)
September 22, 2011 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the overview. Is there going to be an accounting of how the $58,500 was spent - or is that just considered spare, chump change not worth a public accounting?
at_large (anonymous profile)
September 22, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey. You know Santa Barbara. When it comes to useless studies and programs, we spare no expense.
waz (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2011 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The second sentence says it all. These programs are always created from emotion, not from logic, so there is never any metric by which they are judged successful. Spending other's people's money on becoming the west coast's bum destination spot may make these folks feel good, but it's turning our main product of tourism into a urine soaked failure.
el_smurfo (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2011 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that hiring a cop is considered more worthy than hiring a social worker? The whole concept of "restorative policing" is oxy-moronic. In addition, of course, it would be possible to hire at least two social workers for the salary and benefit costs of one police officer. Could it be that politics is at play here?
RHS (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2011 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Because cops get results. Social workers are part of the problem.
el_smurfo (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2011 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
el_smurfo: You beat me to it! All I can say now is, ditto.
waz (anonymous profile)
September 23, 2011 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What is with these mean 'conservatives' wanting a 'police state.'
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2011 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The rule of law is not the same as a police state. For a real example of a police state, visit Cuba, North Korea, Syria and get some perspective on the world.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2011 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no 'law' or constitutional requirement in the U.S.A. or Santa Barbara requiring one to own or rent a home.
Harassment, move along, jail, shuffle off to the county line, by the police state, for not having a home, is what they are doing in Santa Barbara, U.S.A., and I suppose that is what they would do in Cuba, North Korea and Syria.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 24, 2011 at 10:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are, however, laws against public urination/defecation and harassing citizens (agressive panhandling), including a city ordinance recently passed.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 25, 2011 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Panhandling hurts tourism and local businesses...period.
sallyt (anonymous profile)
September 25, 2011 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes those are crimes that could be put into the queue for a prioritized police response. And some of our ordinances are constitutionally questionable and that is why they are not enforced. 'Harassing' is subjective and sometimes asking for money is just simply free speech. Free speech is what we have here in the U.S.A. like it or not.
A lot of things hurts tourism. And sometimes tourism hurts neighborhoods and even other businesses....sometimes businesses hurts tourists. Tourist oriented businesses sometimes hurts community....period.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 25, 2011 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"What is with these mean 'conservatives' wanting a 'police state.'"
Are you sure it is only conservatives who want a police state? I can read between the lines and see that you are pointing out the contradiction between those who say they want small government while wanting big government through enforcement, but trust me, power grabs come from both sides. Just look at the Patriot Act.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 1:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"A lot of things hurts tourism. And sometimes tourism hurts neighborhoods and even other businesses....sometimes businesses hurts tourists. Tourist oriented businesses sometimes hurts community....period."
This is about the time he started hearing the voices again.
waz (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hank (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 10:06 a.m.
Well, 3 for 3 :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WAZ! right again! My idea, FREAKING BUS TOKENS. Bus token, bus tokens, bus tokens! get em outta town, Dammit. Our city is broke, we cant afford to educate our children. Our streets are a mess! WE CANNOT AFFORD THE HOMELESS ANYMORE!!!
a2x4headache (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently I'm not allowed to post on this matter in my usual way, but waz, 2x4, smurfo, sally, John_L, BillC, @_Large & spacey, my sentiments exactly. There, I hope that's pc enough to NOT get deleted :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I was downtown this afternoon. Lots of crime taking place. Nothing involving homeless that I know of. The more serious of the crimes involved motor vehicles. Rolling through a red light, very close to rolling over toes of cell phone chatting pedestrian. Failure to stop behind the stop line over and over again. Cell, Cell, Cell while driving. Suzuki motos revving up from blocks away. Dirt motorbikes spewing for blocks blocks. A wheelie. Full throttled nasty hogs. Illegally scraping bottom lowered cars with tires pointed inwards. Illegally large trucks with very large tires. Motorcycles parked on sidewalks. Cars parked 2 1/10 feet from the curb. Cars driving in the bike lane, for blocks. Boom boxes, boom boom boom for blocks. Pooty scooters pootin. A CA licensed motorbike stinking up the bike lane for blocks. Suicide bikes stinking up the bike lane. A couple stumbled out of a happy hour onto State, loaded? An aggressive suited finger flipping harassing a chick in a car for something. All in about 1 hour 15 minutes. Nary a cop to be seen. I guess they were on Milpas tending to Sharon Byrnes' homeless gripes.
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 26, 2011 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You apparently missed the bicyclists running stop signs and red lights and the pedestrians jaywalking. But I do agree that the SBPD is sorely lacking in presence, integrity, and leadership.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don. The bums were still asleep when you got there. By the way. Maybe you should seek help for that weird hatred of motorcycles you exhibit.
"Suzuki motos revving up from blocks away."
"Dirt motorbikes spewing for blocks blocks."
"A wheelie."
"Full throttled nasty hogs."
"Motorcycles parked on sidewalks."
"Pooty scooters pootin."
"A CA licensed motorbike stinking up the bike lane for blocks."
Don. I know it's hard to ride a motorcycle with your condition. You know. That stick you have up your hiny? But, if you ever do get that thing out of there, you should try the motorcycle thing. I personally have a lot of fun tearing up the trails to Little Pine.
waz (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Waz, it ain't only the stick in the hiney thing, it's an overdose of medicinal doughuts Don is suffering from.
As for Don not having fun, what's so new about that? It is a known fact socialists (even wannabes like Don) don't like to have fun & hate those that do have fun :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Apparently, they also really hate motorcycles. That's odd because that's practically all you see in China.
waz (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Waz, what about The Motorcycle Diaries? The piece of schlock featuring the life & times of the filthiest of commie scum: Che Guevarra :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Waz and Hank, while I can't vouch for Don's comments about motorcycles, I CAN say that his description of downtown S.B. is consistant with what I see all over town.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aggressive panhandlers, mentally ill people around, angry drivers flipping each other off, crowded streets, gang bangers all about, and a city run more like a country club whose people can barely afford to breath the rarefied hot air emanating from the sacred chambers of city hall. No wonder so many people are so angry. All these ills tie in together.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 27, 2011 at 6:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whole lotta hatin' goin' on, as usual.
In comparatively economically healthy areas, most residents can afford a roof over their heads. SB has carefully squeezed out everyone below a constantly moving socioeconomic line. SB wants service people to tend to its wealthy and its precious tourists, but it doesn't want these people, or the old, poor, and disabled actually LIVING there. If a way could be found to put up a gate and armed guard at the city limits, and to enact a permit system whereby the unwanted were allowed in only during working hours when they were engaged in service to the wealthy & tourists, it would be done in a split second. Don't kid yourself..it would happen.
Homeless people are not the cause of all ills any more than other scapegoats throughout history were. Homeless people are symptom of a dystopian society. We however, have been carefully indoctrinated to not look at this unfortunate fact, and to do as we are told, blaming the poor for all that ails.
A longtime, popular State St. restaurant favored by locals was forced to close because of a shocking rent increase. Their rent skyrocketed from 5k per month (ridiculous in and of itself) to 20k per month, triple net. Like so many other local businesses, they were forced out by soaring rents and nickle-and-diming by a huge commercial landlord.
But...it's easier to blame the homeless person because he is easier to hate than the invisible corporate landlord. The corporate landlord has lawyers, guns and money. The homeless guy has nothing. Easier to beat up on the guy with nothing than it is on the guy who can hit back and really hurt you.
So, please...by all means..don't look at the root causes of SB's socioeconomic ills...just keep right on blaming the poor and using juvenile derogatory terms when referring to them. Because that is helping solve all SBs problems. Right.
Must say though...there are several good descriptions here of SB and its frantic, aggressive insanity. Was there the other day for about 4 hours and it made me so nervous I couldn't get out fast enough. Lived there for 32 years and am VERY glad I don't live there any longer. So much angry, aggressive energy..just frantic and NOT fun.
And it wasn't because of homeless people, either.
Holly (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2011 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think someone should take the old Jerry Lee Lewis classic "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin On" and change the lyrics to "whole lotta hatin' Goin On".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2011 at 1:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How foolish for the hate above. All I did was point out the idiotic focus on those with out there with their constitutionally protected free speech hands out or 'aggressive panhandling' while every other axel and tailpipe gets a pass. Outside of the aggressive polluting hotrod, high-performance and polluting corporate b.s. I enjoy downtown very much.
Holly has it right about what is squeezing businesses out. Adding; imbalances in development often promoted by superficial Lodge Era environmentalists that promote RDA projects, generating demand for housing and instead of housing build parking garages, wider freeways and turn our residential streets into fast moving roads for fiendish motor-heads. If you think I'm the only one complaining about this check out the suburban 3 fingas down Randy Rowses' meza rat crowd complaining about Cliff Drive. And then of course there are all those hump, bump, chicane requests by Mesa, San Roque and Samarkand hoods. Still no curb extentions at de la Vina and Figueroa, Randy Rowse?
DonMcDermott (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2011 at 5:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Holly seems to neglect the fact that when the vast majority of these people arrived in Santa Barbara, they were already homeless. They are a transient population. Unfortunately, for many of them, there's no transitting through Santa Barbara. Anyone who thinks that having this type of a growing population in Santa Barbara is a good thing, is seriously delusional. The only problem with these people is not the fact that they panhandle (sometimes way too aggressively). The problem is they tend to commit many other crimes, often not very serious, but taken in their totality, are an extreme nuisance. They usually do these crimes to pay for the very things that got them where they are today, i.e., drugs and alcohol. And, let's not forget about the many other public nuisance violations they commit, i.e., trespassing, public urination and defication, public drunkeness, prostitution (yes, prostitution), etc. Businesses pay very good money to have the city allow them the privilege of placing some tables outside of their establishments. I know very few people that want to pay $18 to eat lunch next to a guy soaked in sweat and urine. I know a lot of people want to think of the homeless population as just a bunch of normally hard working people that just hit a rough patch, but that's just not true in many cases. There's not a problem with homelessness in Santa Barbara. There's a problem with the homeless in Santa Barbara.
waz (anonymous profile)
September 28, 2011 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)