MSNBC.com also posted a dozen photos of the encampment, with photos by Dorothea Lange of a homeless family camping in nearly the same spot - in 1936.

This is a great reminder of the urgency of this problem. There are some good ideas that could help homelessness here and elsewhere. I saw a news story about E.D.A.R (everyone deserves a roof), and it made me want to start a campaign to raise money for this program here in Sac. See www.edar.org Is anyone with me on it?

The Chronicle has a large photo essay on this in Saturday's paper and online.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/g/a/2009/03/06/Tent_City.DTL&o=0

And yet the city council, including Mr. Johnson voted on Feb 24, 2009 to close the Berry Hotel - losing another 108 housing units. Since the mid 1990's the number of lower income housing units city-wide has dropped from over 1,000 units to now just about 500. The city continues to close and abandon viable housing stock downtown, the Berry, Biltmore, Belvue and on and on. There is money in the downtown redevelopment fund (separate from General Fund) to create low and extremely low income housing. It is not a budget issue it is a priorities issue. But...downtown developers want that land to create new fake loft living that few can afford. In the mid-1960's with a much lower population there were over 4,000 housing units for low and extremely low income people (often the elderly & disabled) in downtown alone. Now we have a fraction of that and four times the population in the city. City leaders for decades have failed its citizens and Mr. Johnson is now part of that failed system and cannot claim ignorance or immunity. The need has been great for years and only now with the bad press is anyone talking about it and only now saying they need to do something - this crisis has been years in the making.

Steve. I know that the mayor has a lot on his "plate" right now, and must prioritize his plan to take action on various fronts. BUT is he and /or his "team" crafting anything to do about the homeless problem?

As a co-founder and member for over five years of the Sacramento County/Cities Board on Homelessness, I offered my assistance and experience to the mayor. First I emailed the attorney who was listed as part of his original advisory board. His office is downtown, and I to let him know that I was available. Then I offered to join Johnson's "team" -- the invitation you extended here in an earlier article in Sacpress. I have heard nothing yet from either.

The so far effective Phoenix (Maricopa County) 10 year plan offers some hope if that plan were to be adopted here. However, it is true that the homeless problem in Sacramento now differs from the one that our board attempted to address a few years back,so some modifications would have to be made.

Sacramento's primary approach for years has long been to implement a "maintenance" mode with few results on the results side of the equation. I would judge from hearing interviews with those who have become homeless recently that they want results.

Before leaving the board, I suggested that Sacramento's 10-year plan offer a preventive program--if nothing more than a homeless "hot line" phone number for individuals about to become homeless. Those taking the calls would be knowledgeable of supportive services and would refer callers to services which if obtained, could prevent them from being homeless. However, social service and homeless providers on the board unanimously opposed any preventive measures.

savemidtown: the SRO issue is more complicated than you seem to suggest and was a long time not-pretty picture as to accommodations in those "hotels" in the CBD and what transpired in many of them, including violence, hard drug dealing and related fall out not to mention the freezing rooms in winter and scorching hot rooms in summer.

The city did adopt a solution which improved significantly the facilities and conditions in new SRO's, which were to be located throughout the city and county along transit lines. As I remember, one suggested site was to be in the the RR development plans bordering your neighborhood. But the plans received significant opposition, so I doubt it will ever happen there. Hopefully you will be able to convince your neighbors of the need.

Dale: Homeless camps also have violence, hard drug dealing and related fallout, freezing winters and scorching hot summers, without even the benefit of rooms to swelter or freeze in. SRO housing is far from perfect, but at least they're a room, and when properly maintained and managed, they can be pretty decent. Destroying housing and replacing it with nothing (the current strategy) only means more people will become homeless.

One of the challenges is city enforcement of minimum maintenance standards, both on SRO hotels and other rental units, but with the city cutting more code enforcement staff and continually delaying the Preservation Commission's meetings on the subject (the city cancelled 4 of the past 6 Preservation Commission meetings, and crafting better maintenance standards is the main subject the PC has hoped to address at those canceled meetings) the city doesn't even have the means to follow up on landlords whose buildings become unlivable. We have lost three SRO hotels since the City Council promised it would maintain a "no net loss" policy 3 years ago, and one central city apartment building, for no apparent reason.

There isn't much point to setting up a crisis number as you suggest: remaining social services are already overloaded, and the county isn't even done cutting programs. If someone isn't in the current system, odds are they aren't getting in anytime soon. Save yourself the effort of actually staffing that crisis number: just set up a phone number with a voice message that said "tough luck buddy, you're pretty much screwed!"

The problem is NOT ENOUGH HOUSING, at least not enough housing of the sort that people can afford. The answer won't be found in crisis numbers, or charities handing out blankets and sandwiches, or police rousting homeless folks for camping or collecting cans, or demolishing the places where they gather as though somehow homeless people were a waste product of dilapidated buildings instead of human beings. Until we start building more housing, housing that is affordable to all, we'd better get used to more tent cities, more people sleeping on the street, and probably more TV reporters talking about what a miserable place Sacramento must be.

Another way to address homlessness rather than building more places to house them, is to develop an economy that will create jobs that will provide income levels appropriate to pay for acceptable housing. There are not enough tax dollars to take care of the problem, there never will be, nor will there be enough "expendable" dollars to fund non profits that provide support. I think many are approaching the problem from the wrong end. Be it paying for public safety, education or homelessness, economic stability and growth are the answers. Temporary fixes need to be addressed during this crisis period, but long term solutions need to be focused on developing industry and jobs.

Part I - Said like a true paid social worker, Bill. But your argument ignores some realities and some lapses in time. There are holes in your logic and you lump homeless into one group when it comes to self-motivation, complying with requirements, neighbor and self-destructive behavior, attacking other homeless and accepting services—to mention only a few. (Continued in Part II)

art II - First the homeless: I have a social/employment worker background too. In the early nineties and living in midtown where I saw homeless everyday, I felt a responsibility to help those in need. This is the first time I’ve written or spoken publicly about it in any detail.

For 10 years beginning with 1989, the county allocated a million dollars increase in funding each year to those providers that said they knew how to house and reduce homelessness. But there were no measurable results. In fact homelessness increased, with many moving in from other areas of the state, country and Nevada.

In that time frame and over a three-year period, I “adopted” as my “caseload” 14 homeless individuals most in need, which taught me a different reality than several paid social workers knew whom I met on the Homeless Board. Yes, “my” homeless were a mix of mentally ill, drug and alcohol addicts, Vietnam Veterans, those with criminal backgrounds and those motivated to get out of being homeless but needed referral to training or jobs as well as those not motivated.

Most importantly I discovered a myth that homeless advocates repeat “no one wants to be homeless.“ This line brings in donations but does not reflect reality. I found out that, hard as it was for them, some desperately wanted help and were willing to follow through on what they had to do to help themselves. I could only do so much for them ,but together we did succeed!

Others did not want to cooperate. Although they said that they did not want to be homeless, they also said they wanted housing on THEIR terms, meaning the conditions under which they would accept free or rental housing. They were very honest and admitted to me that they had adapted to being homeless and said in cumulative phrases like the following, “It isn’t so bad being homeless. I’m my own boss. I know how to take care of myself. It was worse in Vietnam. Yeah, it can be tough when the nights are rainy and cold. I don’t want to pay rent to those turkey landlords. I work hard for my money.”

When those with that attitude heard that I had helped one of their “buddies” and then came to me for help, their friend had not told them that I would ask them to assume some self-help responsibilities. When I told them that, it did not go well with those individuals

No, I wasn’t paid either. In fact, it cost me—non-tax deductible. Further, I experienced some arrogant homeless advocates at that time demeaning my experience—defensive and self-serving in my opinion.

When you, other paid homeless advocates, church personnel (most churches have refused to “adopt” even one or two homeless), or other people working OUTSIDE their jobs, have VOLUNTEERED equal NON-PAID time, money and energy to “adopt” several homeless as well as served over five years on a homeless board where I saw opposition to practical solutions and advocates refuse to hold themselves accountable for results, then let’s compare notes.

As to the hot line number that I proposed. There were services and help available THEN. So would the line have worked? Was there enough help for everyone who might call? No one knows because providers opposed finding out. So don’t confuse then with now.

During those years board members also learned that less than five nights each year were all shelters full with no bed space available. Many beds remained empty with homeless choosing to camp outside. Persons were turned away because those accepted had to agree to certain behavior requirements, including not showing up drunk or be on hard drugs or acting in a hostile and threatening ways, posing a risk to others. Many did not want those conditions placed on them.

Advocates on the homeless board did teach me something about incentives that I’d never thought about before: homeless providers are not awarded larger government allocations or more grants for serving a diminishing workload.

Part III Now the SRO and tent issues - Some historical facts:
1. SRO’s are privately owned profit-making hotels, and tents in cities are created for various reasons by the homeless themselves. No one would tolerate any government creating and overlooking living conditions that exist in tents. Therefore, governments must address the resulting problems and conditions in each case differently.

About 10 years ago now which was the time of the SRO tragedies, residents pleaded for help and complained to the media about filthy and unsanitary conditions, violent attacks to which they were repeatedly subjected, living in fear of being robbed of their meager cash, at least one or two deaths and several other complaints. Consequently, they had not been and were NOT PROPERLY managed as you suggest.

The media and social service advocates skewered SHRA and the city for “allowing” such conditions to exist in the SROs. Code Enforcement staff had NOT been cut then and did go in to enforce and clean up. Please don’t confuse staff shortages then with now, Bill.

Some private owners of the larger hotels did make satisfactory improvements. However, other owners said they could only make minimal repairs to comply. They could NOT afford to do what the city was requiring and could NOT hire full-time management. Their position was that if they were made to do more, then they would have to raise rents. This would then make the rooms unaffordable to their current residents, and they would be on the streets.

The outcry at the time spurred SHRA into developing a future plan to resolve the long existing problem. I was involved with SHRA in that problem resolution. The fact that SROs had insufficient sized lobbies in which tenants could to sit or socialize and no outside patio space for smokers, caused tenants to loiter on the mall, some of whom were inebriates. Other deplorable conditions existed too which drove tenants onto the Mall.

Shoppers and diners complained that they felt their safety compromised by those “loiterers” and threatened to spend their money elsewhere. This put SHRA and city government in the middle of the controversy, not being able to satisfy the complainers nor the advocates.

This caused staff, council and businesses to agree that not all SROs should be concentrated in just the CBD and new SROs should be built with basic amenities that respected tenants’ needs. “No net loss” was a goal some years ago. To effect that goal “new” SROs were to be spread “fairly” throughout the city and located in new or remodeled motels or other buildings near transit lines and if possible, strip-shopping malls. Your allegation that the “current strategy” is to “destroy housing and replacing it with nothing” is not accurate.

2. When it comes to tents, the city and county are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. As you say, Bill, “Homeless camps also have violence, hard drug dealing and related fallout, freezing winters and scorching hot summers, without even the benefit of rooms to swelter or freeze in.” But if either government attempts to correct those problems, advocates and homeless will attack the city or county accusing them of harassing them and moving them around.

Bill, I’m surprised that you wrote that it is a “benefit to swelter or freeze in a room.” To remove the tents deprives homeless of any protection over their head too. As a homeless man told an SN&R reporter, a dry tent is better than out in the open rain and cold. It is the unhealthy conditions that inhabitants create and resulting costs of clean-up, which homeless and their advocates overlook. In the long run those conditions create safety and health problems that government must deal with and taxpayers ultimately pay for.

Unlike your comments suggest, I have considerable knowledgeable of both issues and am very sympathetic to the needy who want to be helped. I agree with you that there is not nearly enough housing but housing in itself is not the “all-end-all.” All the housing in the world will not solve Sacramento’s homeless problem UNTIL homeless advocates recognize and counsel those homeless who misbehave by inflicting violence on others—a small but extremely important destructive number. That situation must be corrected.

It is neither right nor fair to spend scarce resources on those who refuse to behave or fail to cooperate for their own good, leaving the county with too little resources to aid the many who desperately want safe and decent housing. That has been and will continue to be a basic obstacle to solving the problem. Homeless advocates must admit that reality and step up to the plate to work cooperatively to effect correction.

Most of the encampments are NOT on UP land. There is a small encampment called the "Snake Pit," near the Almond Factory which is UP land, and they do a very good job of hustling the homeless out of it. The large encampment there is not on UP land.

Dale: Actually, I am no longer in the social work field. However, I do think that my 12 years working with homeless, mentally ill adults and 3 years working with residents of SROs gives me some knowledge of the subject.

There is a difference between learning to tolerate homelessness and wanting to be homeless. Human beings can tolerate a great many indignities. When faced with the rough realities of the streets, people adapt and try to make the best of their situations. Sometimes the long-term homeless have great difficulty adapting to life off the street. Some view going back to society as "selling out" and are reluctant to return. But most haven't been there that long. So while I wouldn't say "no one wants to be homeless" as an absolute statement, I can tell you that most people on the streets don't want to be there.

I have my own opinions about the philosophies of social work in the early 1990s, when I first moved downtown and entered the profession. The model you meniton is based on the idea that those without housing must first address issues like substance abuse and mental illness, and THEN enter housing. This case-management model, typically in conjunction with temporary shelters, creates a revolving door, because its fundamental premise is backwards. If your problem is with this model of social work, you have my full agreement.

The core problem is homelessness. Whatever problems a person on the street has, being homeless makes it worse. If you drink a little too much while housed, on the street you'll become an alcoholic. If you are a bit prone to depression while housed, on the street you'll experience chronic severe depression. If you have a bad ankle and have to wear a splint sometimes, on the street you'll end up walking with a crutch or a cane--or in a wheelchair. This makes the "treatment first" philosophy far less efficient, because instead of dealing with a small problem you have to deal with a much bigger one--and one that the client will have a harder time addressing because of the overriding problem of survival on the street.

"Housing first" is based on providing the housing first, then addressing other problems. Because these problems are no longer being aggravated by the overriding problem of being homeless, their problems often become easier to treat. Some will fail and end up back on the street. Others will stabilize and require ongoing case management, but will remain housed. And some will get so much better that they don't need case management anymore, and sometimes re-enter the workforce.

Other cities (Portland and Denver are examples) found that "housing first" solutions ended up costing far less than traditional "treatment first" approaches. The reason is a bit counterintuitive but simple: A small handful of the homeless population (the chronic homeless) spend the most time in emergency rooms, psychiatric facilities, shelters, jails, etcetera, and cost the most money. Target them first, house them first, and suddenly they are no longer taking up a lot of emergency services. The remaining population are that much easier to work with, and cost that much less.

I am under no illusion that we can solve 100% of homelessness. But let's say we can solve 50%. There are around 3000 homeless people in Sacramento right now: imagine half of them housed, in more stable places and more stable condition. Imagine the crowds at Salvation Army and Loaves & Fishes at half what they are now, half the tent cities, half the people sleeping in doorways. It would make a big difference in total cost to the city, in our city's image to visitors and residents (and TV crews), and certainly to the 1500 people who don't have to sleep outdoors.

As to the folks who prey on others: The chronic homeless are more likely to be victims than victimizers. By providing housing for those in greatest need, the "wolves" are easier to spot, and to stop. "Housing first" means there is more room to house those folks too--in jail.

I know it works because I saw it work, both in transitional housing and long-term case management. The goal is to break the cycle of homelessness. Not everyone was a success story, but others were able to maintain stable, long-term housing, simply because they now had something to lose and saw the value of what they had gained. Still others had my help for a while, but made progress, realized they didn't need it any more and became independent. Those were my success stories, and they are the most enjoyable part of the social work profession. The suggestion that I wanted people to stay homeless for my own job security is utter nonsense.

I am sure you have considerably knowledge and considerable sympathty, Dale. I ask you to accept the idea that I have some of my own. I have my own ideas about the city's SRO policy as well, but I'll probably turn those into another article in the near future.

Bill, I need no lecture on the philosophy behind "housing first." That idea was a product of Bush's 10-year plan on homelessness. I was on the board when it was introduced by Federally contracted private Seattle consultants who knew little about homelessness . They coined the term "chronicallly homeless" too.

Housing first helps some and enables others. I support "housing first" for those who will commit to dealing with their drug, alcohol or violent behavior problems (I always exempt mentall ill form making any commitment.) But not for those who have REPEATEDLY taken advantage of a service for a short time and then reverted back to their detructive behavior when we have newly homeless who need help NOW! Those folks should not have to wait while we recycle over and over those who do not demonstrate a willingness or commitment to changing their behavior and allow them to suck up our resources that our newly motivated homeless need.

The problem is that whether it is unemployment, TANF or homelessness it is a known fact that the quicker a person receives a service the greater the success for people to return to their prior productive lives. These individuals also cost the least to help and require fewer resources to succeed, enabling us to serve more people in need. Once people have been unemployed for months, on welfare for long periods of time, or on the street for months on end, they become discouraged , give up or acquire bad survival habits--much harder to serve.

People do cope under those circumstances and some adapt but find road back is much harder to travel. There was one young woman who had been asked to be part of homeless representation on the Board. But for mysterious reasons she no longer continued to attend once she agreed publicly with me when I made those points to other board members based on my experience

Of course, I respect your experience and opinions. I agree with some but disagree with others. My experience and opinions were NOT respected by fellow board members. They conveyed in no uncertain terms that they were the "experts" and any opinion other than theirs was neither welcome nor valid. (That is the tone which I felt you were conveying.)

This was in spite of the fact they had failed for years and continued to refuse to be held accountable for results. I heard your rationale stated over and over when I was on the Board, My opinions come from experience at a different level--the street level--where those who came to me or were referred to me knew that I had nothing to gain from helping them--no job or boss to report to. I was not sitting in an office talking to someone asking for a service. It is a well known fact that those in need of social, rehabilitation or employment services will tell provider staff--whether government or non-profit--what they think those government or non-profit workers want to hear. Other board members did not want to hear that reality.

I recommend that anyone who disagrees with me (including churches) spend their time, effort and money to adopt one or more homeless. As I wrote before, then we can compare notes.

Helping someone usually requires more than sympathy or concern. It frequently requires "tough love" as a recovering alcholic and formerliy homeless friend of mind scolded me about when he felt I had been too sympathetic with him, "fell for his excuses" and allowed him to use me, prolonging his homelessness. He said that his road to recovery began when he finally accepted resposiblity for his own misbehavior. That is something we all must do.

One of the first things you learn as a social worker, at least if you're a social worker worth a damn, is how to tell when a client is telling you what you want to hear. But the same folks will also tell other people, professionals or otherwise, what they want to hear if they are trying to get something, as you learned.

My job didn't stick me behind a desk all the time--I and most of my co-workers spent a lot of time in the field, including tromping through the underbrush or in abandoned industrial areas, and directly on the street. Most of my That's where the business is. I suppose administrative staff didn't do that, and maybe that is who you dealt with, but I was never administrative staff.

Housing First is an idea that predates the Bush administration--its origins go back more than 20 years. The Ten-Year Plan you mention is a county plan, not a federal program (Bush did pretty much nothing to address homelessness in this country.) It has housed several hundred people so far, although recent budget troubles have brought many of the program goals to a screeching halt.

Working with the chronic homeless is a higher priority because they are a bigger problem than the newly homeless. The recently homeless still have the skills and the motivation, so it is much easier to get them back on their feet if the "frequent flyers" aren't in the system clogging things up. They cost the least to help and require the fewest resources to succeed, which is why the "housing first" approach makes existing resources far more cost-effective for the recently homeless.

The housing-first philosophy does not mean a consequence-free environment. The folks I worked with made commitments to addressing their problems (including the mentally ill, many of whom can make great strides once the stressor of homelessness is gone) and there were consequences for relapse or bad behavior, including the loss of housing. But I made those agreements with people one they had moved into housing, where they now had something to lose, instead of dangling housing in front of them as a reward for good behavior.

The flip side of being a paid social worker is that we don't always get to pick and choose our clients. Instead of just helping the easiest to help, we were also expected to handle the tough cases, not just the ones we felt were the most deserving.

And you really think all Social Workers and homeless workers can tell whether or not a person is hiding something or telling you what you want to hear, Bill??? Wow! Now you've elevated SWs to mind readers or a deity as perfect individuals who can detect all and know all.

The idea of "housing first" may have surfaced 20 years ago but you should know that it was formally adopted into the county plan having been federally mandated and federally funded through HUD. I did not say it was a federal program.

You're right, as I said too, the chronic are the most costly and most have been homeless for years. They have been recycled over and over during those years--you call them frequent flyer's. What is the verifiable success rate for them to have remained in housing? I was at a meeting about two years ago when a "housing provider" was asked how many of the four or six in his/her "house "dropped out. Answer: two. They were among the "frequent flyers of past years."

You say IF IF the "frequent flyers are not in the system clogging things up"but the reality is that hey ARE in the system over and over and over. As in any business, social work and non profits are a business, effectiveness and accountability through performance as related to results as verified by an outside reviewing party should be a part of quality measurement any program. It happens all the time in other government a programs and private industry.

Providers objected strenuously to gathering reliable and verifiable data which would provide a foundation that held them to a performance standard. County staff had serious problems trying to construct such a data gathering system, and HUD never provided the training for a system or separate money to set it up--at least not at the time I left the board.

Any group receiving taxpayer money from any level of government should always be held accountable for its performance and expenditure of funds. The data system finally crafted was highly unreliable using the unique identifier code instead of SS# like the "dead beat dad" (terrible slang name for it because the program tracked either parent) program which is how offenders are found.

The major obstacle to setting performance standards and obtaining verifiable results is that successful performance equals reduced funding! No bonus funding is ever made available for providers who successfully transition individuals into permanent housing AND retain those same individuals in permanent housing (permanent meaning a minimum of three years).

I am truely thankful to the city of Sacramento for assisting me ending my 10 year bout with homelessness. I credit the people of faith here, that showed a geniune love of their fellow mankind. Through lther loving kindness and services I was able to apply into my life the source of their goodness, faith in Jesus Christ.
I went on to work at the Volunteers of America Bannon Street Shelter, becoming its' Supervisor for 10 years. Only health issues ushered me into retirement, but I have never been free of the plight of the homeless. It is a complex issue to say the least and getting more complex everyday, surely drug and alcohol addiction as well as mental health and the current housing crisis swells the brim of homeless. Veterans and Social Security recipients are a large number of the homeless as well. Getting the right services and assistance to each one is a big task, but each one most be addressed individually. Incentive programs for property management teams or owners might open up more units of housing for the homesless, but some sort of case managment as a follow up must be a component if the cycle is truely to be broken by long term homeless. Affordable housing and rent control are two components that would assist the majority, Jobs are increasingly harder ro come by which now compounds the problem. Definitely not a pretty picture for those folks still out there homeless. There is no one solution to this problem. I sure wish there was. Drug and Alcohol recovery programs, long term transition homes and education on basic life skills, budgeting and lifestyle choices are a few things that come to mind. Anyway thanks for letting me ramble on regardng this subject and again thank you Sacramento for being a part of my road back to recovery and my end to my homelessness.