When Palo Alto officials passed a law Monday banning vehicle dwelling within city borders, they urged members of the nonprofit community to unite and work with the city on a broad and compassionate solution to the homeless problem.
For InnVision Shelter Network, a nonprofit that provides shelter and support services throughout Silicon Valley, the call to action wasn't necessary. The nonprofit group, which operates the Opportunity Center on Encina Avenue in Palo Alto and 17 other sites between San Jose and Daly City, has been working for months with other organizations to develop a solution to a problem that has become increasingly conspicuous in Palo Alto over the past year. Dozens of homeless residents have taken to living at Cubberley Community Center in south Palo Alto, turning it into what City Manager James Keene described as a "de facto homeless shelter."
On Monday, Keene renewed his call for help from the nonprofit community, saying that the city doesn't have the necessary resources and staff to solve the problem on its own.
"We're not going make significant progress if we everyone sits around waiting for the city to come up with a solution," Keene said.
The solution proposed by InnVision, in collaboration with other nonprofits, involves establishing a homeless outreach team (HOT) that would develop a census of Cubberley residents and consider the particular needs of each resident. During this engagement process, the team of case managers would "engage, case manage, transport, and ultimately secure housing for the most difficult-to-serve homeless residents," according to a white paper that the group wrote and provided to the Weekly. These would include residents with mental-health disabilities and substance-abuse issues, as well as those who have been living on the streets for a long time and have resisted services in the past.
The Palo Alto team would tailor a "needs and services plan" for each Cubberley resident, hold one-on-one sessions and outreach events for the residents and transport them to the Opportunity Center or InnVision shelters such as the Montgomery Street and Julian Street Inns in San Jose.
Mila Zelkha, who works on InnVision's administrative team and who helped formulate the program, said the group has been collaborating with other organizations, including the Downtown Streets Team, Momentum for Mental Health and Project WeHOPE, a shelter in East Palo Alto. She called InnVision's proposal a "first pass" and said groups will continue to meet to refine a solution, with each agency contributing its ideas.
Zelkha spoke about the agency's proposal at the May 24 meeting of the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission and plans to present it at the City Council's Policy and Services Committee meeting on Aug. 13. She said her agency didn't take a stance on Palo Alto's vehicle-habitation ban. Both sides in the debate raised important issues that should be considered.
"Many of the people against the ban participate heavily in our programs, including Hotel de Zink, Breaking Bread and Clothes Closet," Zelkha told the Weekly. "They are allies and they have raised legitimate concerns.
"On the other side, we're very concerned about the fact that there is a de facto homeless shelter at Cubberley. It can't continue to exist in the form that it is right now."
Zelkha, a Palo Alto resident who started working for InnVision Shelter Network in May, was among those in attendance at Monday night's council meeting, where members voted 7-2 to approve the ban. She told the council that her organization is concerned about the safety issues around the neighborhoods and at the community center and urged the council to craft a strategy for getting the needed resources to the homeless population.
Zelkha said she has been in talks with city staff since June, gradually modifying the proposal to include a multi-agency approach. In July, the city invited InnVision Shelter Network, the Downtown Streets Team and the San Jose-based Momentum for Mental Health to develop solutions that could be considered by the Policy and Services Committee on Aug. 13. InnVision also hosted a roundtable discussion in late July with congregations that host the rotating Hotel de Zink shelter about possibly expanding the program. The discussion has continued online in a private group, she said.
InnVision Shelter Network (a group formed last year after InnVision merged with Shelter Network) makes it clear in its white paper that solving the problem won't be easy, given the wide range of challenges that vehicle dwellers face. The group's outreach team has already conducted a preliminary assessment of the Cubberley campus, the white paper states. Its strategy includes enhancing the services offered at the Opportunity Center, including intensified case management and life-skills workshops.
Case management will be implemented to "more effectively transition unsheltered homeless people into shelter and other housing opportunities." The paper notes that some members of the community may be employed but "choose to live in their vehicles because of cost efficiency." They may not suffer from addictions or serious illnesses, the paper states.
"These individuals pose unique challenges, as they may not be in need of behavioral or primary health care services," the paper states. "Although these individuals may not pose risk or undue nuisance factors to the community, they also must be assisted in transitioning out of Cubberley (or other areas unsuitable for vehicular or unsheltered housing). IVSN is experienced in negotiating with these individuals and circumstances."
The paper notes that while the program would be new to Palo Alto, it has a proven track record elsewhere in the region. The HOT system has already succeeded in East Palo Alto, San Mateo and Redwood City. It has recently received funds to expand to Half Moon Bay, Pacifica and South San Francisco. The cost of establishing a homeless-outreach team ranges from $125,000 to $150,000, Zelkha.
The goals for the Palo Alto program include a census that accounts for at least 80 percent of Cubberley residents and a two-day Beyond the Streets event that includes participation from at least 90 percent of the residents. Within the first six months of the contract award for a HOT program, 20 percent of the Cubberley residents will secure "permanent, permanent supportive, or other appropriate housing options." Within a year of the contract, the number would be 40 percent. Ultimately, the effort would spread beyond Cubberley, the paper states.
"If implemented, outreach case management will target homeless individuals residing at the Cubberley campus in conjunction with a recommended City of Palo Alto night closure of campus facilities and grounds, with the ultimate goal of dramatically reducing the unsheltered population, and significant efforts undertaken to help to secure permanent exits from homelessness for the target population throughout Palo Alto."
Comments
Mountain View
on Aug 6, 2013 at 1:34 pm
on Aug 6, 2013 at 1:34 pm
affordable housing in palo alto? put on your thinking caps for this. what a waste that the priviledged are making it all their own
Downtown North
on Aug 6, 2013 at 3:59 pm
on Aug 6, 2013 at 3:59 pm
And if you feel that strongly about it Randy from Mountain View, then by all means lobby your city council to repeal your vehicle dwelling ban that your city has had in place for many years. Urge your local government to pass a six-figure tax increase so your public can help subsidize multiple homeless programs and services. Have Mountain View build another Opportunity Center and homeless drop-in facility close to your downtown area. Employ the homeless as we do in Palo Alto on the Downtown Streets Team. Arrange for a consortium of churches in Mountain View to form a Hotel DeZink program which offers temporary shelter to qualifying individuals. Insist that Mountain View opens a food closet in the middle of your downtown area to provide for the homeless like we have at Waverley & hamilton Street.
You take a very convenient position when your city provides a drop in the bucket compared to what Palo Alto offers and plays host to in terms of homeless outreach and services. And with that we're left to cope with the considerable negative fall-out that comes with this level of tolerance and generosity. And yet you so freely criticize Palo Alto? I guess these expectations fall squarely on the shoulders of those in our city, while you conveniently point fingers and expect nothing from yourselves. How convenient and transparent.
Crescent Park
on Aug 6, 2013 at 5:14 pm
on Aug 6, 2013 at 5:14 pm
@ Phil: 2x. Nice job.
Crescent Park
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:42 am
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:42 am
There is something we need to recapture in America,
and it's hard to put this in a subtle way,
but when we have all the very nice people doing all the charity work
and helping the needy and the poor, and all the ??? well, jerks, keeping
their money and buying the politicians, influencing the electorate,
buying and directing the media, well, we merely bolster a dysfunctional
system that has the feedback loops going in the wrong way, and it's
no wonder we end up with such a uncharitable and greedy kind of
society that out shouts and steamrolls over everyone else.
What we really need to do is to do what we used to do, even though
it was not the most efficient use of power and money, that is to tax
progressively so the government has the power to stand up to the
largest entities that would threaten it in the name of the people.
So that charities and charitable institutions have something in our
society that shores them up, and incentivizes good behavior and
being civil and nice.
When Americans started to get a glimpse of our whole country as a nation
and realized how bad some things were, we did that we began to try to
learn how to help, as the military industrial complex began to try to
convert the world to democracy. Well, the military industrial complex
failed miserable in Korea, and Viet Nam, even when the sucked enough
blood from our citizens to remove education, health care, oversight
and infrastructure from the equation ... and the war on poverty was not
a great success either. But we ended the war on poverty, but we
redoubled our military industrial complex efforts ... and they are
still learning. They could be getting better, it's hard to tell.
But then when those folks that only respect war and money learned
how to get together and vote themselves tax breaks by scaring everyone
else into thinking the system would collapse without them we went
farther than just dropping the war on poverty, we began a war on poor
people too. Except we sure like to work those poor desperate people,
and call them names if they find they cannot fit into a system so inhuman.
It's like when the nice people who recycle or conserve water do their
best, they enable the people who do not recycle and who waste water.
It is really about time that the American people started to consider the
long term affects of having a few weak people who only think of
themselves driving the policy of a city, or the state or the nation.
Crescent Park
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:45 am
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:45 am
If Mountain View has vehicle ban why are there fairly many RV parked around the city?
There is a real monster of an RV almost always parked out by Terminal Ave. and the Shoreline park parking lot on the border of Palo Alto. It doesn't look like it belongs to a homeless person either.
Greater Miranda
on Aug 7, 2013 at 11:13 am
on Aug 7, 2013 at 11:13 am
in 1983 ,you spent 60 dollars a week on food!!!!!!!!! 60 dollars now would get you 3 days of bread and chips!!!!!!!!!! in 1963 , two dollars and fifty cents was like 10 dollars is today! you think you got money!?
Crescent Park
on Aug 7, 2013 at 11:23 am
on Aug 7, 2013 at 11:23 am
$60 buys more than bread and chips, what an exaggeration!
For starters, You can buy a full sized roasted chicken (feeds 4 people easily) for $5 at Costco. Fast food? $5 gets you a great fresh burger, fries and a drink at In n Out. Fresh vegetables and fruit from any grocery store....
I could go on....
another community
on Aug 7, 2013 at 11:39 am
on Aug 7, 2013 at 11:39 am
To point out the obvious - not everybody can afford to live in PA. I can't, that's why I live in "another community".
That's just the way it is. If you can't afford the rent or mortgage, you've gotta go somewhere else. You sure as heck don't have the right to cause grief for others by camping out in front of their homes or community centers.
College Terrace
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:38 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:38 pm
>To point out the obvious - not everybody can afford to live in PA. I can't, that's why I live in "another community".
That's just the way it is. If you can't afford the rent or mortgage, you've gotta go somewhere else. You sure as heck don't have the right to cause grief for others by camping out in front of their homes or community centers.
Bingo! Dead on, danos. Thanks for making the obvious point.
Craig
South of Midtown
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm
My observation: Mountain View (conveniently) tends not to enforce their vehicle ban in areas close to Palo Alto's border, giving their unhoused folks easier access to the homeless services in Palo Alto.
Actually, many of Mountain View's recent (last five years) development decisions have been very hostile to Palo Alto as well--putting high density housing and retail close to our border without giving adequate consideration to traffic impacts on Palo Alto streets. Our city government should be taking a very close look at how Mountain View is operating on our borders these days.
They push their homeless and traffic impacts here...and attempt to pull our retail dollars there. I'm pretty angry about it. I won't be shopping there any more. I stopped when the new Safeway opened. The new San Antonio Center development is awful...and Mountain View is about to make it bigger. See for Merlone Geier's Phase II plans. The link is in the “Announcements” box on the top right of their web page. Click on “download” for the pdf.
Web Link
Stanford
on Aug 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm
A giant sucking sound--thanks for an amusing post
"Actually, many of Mountain View's recent (last five years) development decisions have been very hostile to Palo Alto as well--putting high density housing and retail close to our border without giving adequate consideration to traffic impacts on Palo Alto streets."
And so?? Palo Alto should have absolutely no say in what MV does.
"Our city government should be taking a very close look at how Mountain View is operating on our borders these days."
PA can look all they want--and they will see how development happens in a well run city. PA could learn some lessons from MV.
"and attempt to pull our retail dollars there. '
Duh!!! Every city tries to pull retail dollars into it. Tax revenue.
And considering that there is no real shopping in Palo Alto for everyday items--MV here I come
"The new San Antonio Center development is awful"
I think it is wonderful. A nice sized Safeway. the COunter and more to come. PA should be green with envy. I alwyas encourage people to shop MV
Crescent Park
on Aug 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 1:40 pm
"funny" if you do not think cities need to be respectful & cooperative with each other you are not doing much thinking.
there are lots of people who say there should not be housing codes either, or CC&Rs in a condo or townhouse development, or any standards in what someone's front yard looks like, etc. you can talk all you want but there is a reason those things exist, and there is a reason towns need to get along and cooperate. of course palo alto should have a say in what mountain view does, and vice-versa.
Stanford
on Aug 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm
CrescentParkAnon--has palo alto ever consulted with MV on what they are doing?
Knowing how things work in PA, do you think MV really wants anyone from PA involved??
PA should have no say whatsoever in what MV does. MV residents elect MV representatives to make decisions--they do not want PA politicians meddling in their affairs.
As an example, look at the shopping center on Charleston near the 101 on ramp in MV. MV decided to build it, it was built. In palo alto, they would still be discussing it.
PA always complains about traffic--all the time, about everything. they are like the little boy that cried wolf.
MV does not need or want PA interference in their affairs. i suppose if PA had their way the San Antonio Center development would not be happening. MV may respect PA, but they do not want or need their advice.
Crescent Park
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:17 pm
[Post removed.]
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:22 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:22 pm
We already offer:
-government social services, housing, welfare
-charity through recognized non-profits
-charity through organized religious groups
-individual acts of charity
I am not sure there is a "solution" to the homeless problem
We do have the right to safe access to public spaces that are maintained to the standards of decent public health
Palo Alto must enforce the law. Standing by haplessly while vagrants take over Cubberley Community Center is not to the benefit of Palo Altans.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm
One thing Palo Alto and Mountain View officials CAN do is take a look and benchmark the best practices of their neighboring cities. As someone who lives in PA, I feel no "rivalry" whatsoever with MV, that isn't the point.
Stanford
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 2:33 pm
[Post removed.]
another community
on Aug 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 5:58 pm
The Recreational Vehicle
On the brink of its demise china stepped in and bailed out a company that manufactures Recreational vehicles in the USA. RV Sales the previous year flat lined at zero, but the very next year, after China stepped in, sales are reaching 300 million. What does China know that we do not?
The Recreational Vehicle industry is an American invention, born during our days of high leisure, good roads and a desire to forgo indolence. The Recreational Vehicle is the garage Hewlett and Packard would have wanted in their day. China’s need for our invention is housing. These are not FEMA trailers. With density problems that far surpass our own, China has discovered the Recreational vehicle...as a cheap, mobile, dockable form of transitional housing. China gets it. California does not. In an age of increasing homelessness in the USA, this country shut down one viable industry that is the very thing it needs right now. The city of Palo Alto just banned parking a vehicle to occupy it as a home for more than 72 hours. This is one of the reasons American business is falling apart. What country destroys the very thing it needs? Worse, what country sells to another the thing needed because it fails to see its own value?
Web Link
another community
on Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 pm
on Aug 7, 2013 at 10:19 pm
Can We Americans still do great things...?
Web Link
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Aug 8, 2013 at 9:14 am
on Aug 8, 2013 at 9:14 am
"I am not sure there is a "solution" to the homeless."
When I was girl, there was no chronically homeless problem, because there where public investments in mental health care. Ronald Reagan gave us policy changes that produced the chronically homeless problem virtually overnight.
When we fail to deal with that problem, we also make it difficult for the people who are just down on their luck and need temporary help, because people conflate the two, and the needs are very different.
In the meantime, rigid ideology keeps us locked on the current path instead of able to put our energies to being pragmatic. Another gift from RR.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 8, 2013 at 10:19 am
on Aug 8, 2013 at 10:19 am
Palo Alto has LOTS of low-income housing; just look at Palo Alto Housing Corporation which manages the 1,000+ units. Mountain View nor any other town around here can say that.
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 9, 2013 at 10:11 am
on Aug 9, 2013 at 10:11 am
Charles Dickens wrote "The law, in its equality, forbids rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges."
We cannot outlaw desperation, but we can outlaw the acts of the desperate, making them even more desperate while we try to hide them away so we don't have to feel guilty about their suffering.
I always felt good about Palo Alto's compassion for the less fortunate by allowing them to fill a basic human need by sleeping in their vehicles when there was no other place to sleep. I don't feel so good about Palo Alto any more. It's a shame.
A society is judged by its treatment of its most vulnerable members. I feel strongly that there should have been another solution. There must have been one, this was just "easier" for those with the power to make the choice.
Midtown
on Aug 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm
on Aug 9, 2013 at 12:51 pm
Dear Neighbors,
Most of our current 'homeless' both 'vehicle dwellers & other unhoused folks were Palo Alto residents living in homes or apartments in Palo Alto. Plus, many have jobs but unable to afford rents anywhere in Santa Clara county. A portion are people who work here and compute from long distances which makes going home nightly impossible. NHN serves Palo Alto residents, too many on our groceries rooster are becoming homeless. These folks are your upper & middle income neighbors.
Please consider that there are good 'alternative measures' rather than a droconian ordiance which will make the circomstances of your neighbors who are failing horrifyingly worse. WE HAVE SEVERELY INADEQUTE 'SAFETY NET SERVICES'. The gaps and cracks in social services will not happen over night nor will there suddenly be adequte services in 6 mos.
Currently, there is no gap in emergency, temporary or permenant housing that these homeless folks can receive for free or afford because THERE IS NO HOUSING AVAILABLE.
It is false to believe that right now there are 'shelter beds' for street homeless or car campers. NHN peer counsels many homeless. And there has been NO available beds in quite sometime (except isolated incidents).
There is NO 'motel voucher' program in Santa Clara county. Previsionally, some faith groups have given money for motel stays but it is so little to match the true need for folks in dire circumstances.
Of the 500+ residents in need, housed & unhoused, which NHN provides peer counseling not one of them (even though they quailify) has been approved for public housing unit(s) in Palo Alto. Many of these folks (singles, seniors, couples and families) has submited public housing applications repeatedly (2004-2013).
[Portion removed.]
another community
on Aug 9, 2013 at 1:17 pm
on Aug 9, 2013 at 1:17 pm
I'm going to sue Charles Dickens for plagiarism.
Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2013 at 12:37 am
on Aug 11, 2013 at 12:37 am
JustMe, until that someone is sleeping in their car in front of your house every night. I can't say for certain because I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet you'd sing a different tune.
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2013 at 6:04 am
on Aug 11, 2013 at 6:04 am
Most homeless and car dwellers suffer from mental disorders. Ronald Reagan eliminated government spending on mental illness. As a result, a flood of mentally disturbed people flooded the streets of our country and the homeless population exploded. It's impossible to completely eliminate the homeless problem, but the problem used to be a fraction of what it is now.
Conservatives/libertarians created this crisis, it's their responsibility to fix it.
Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2013 at 9:44 am
on Aug 11, 2013 at 9:44 am
Boscoli, a good observation, but let's not stop there. Liberals created the dependent, tax ridden, welfare state that we now live. It's their responsibility to fix that too.
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 11, 2013 at 11:45 am
on Aug 11, 2013 at 11:45 am
Phill, if you have ever been outside of the US, you would realize that the US is not a welfare state, not even close. You would also realize that our "tax burden" is very light compared to that of most civilized, advanced countries. We certainly do have form of the welfare state, i:e. welfare for big banks and other financial institutions which are allowed to engage in the most irresponsible activities that endanger the entire world, but are bailed out by the tax payers when they get into trouble. We also certainly have a welfare state for the military/Industrial complex, for mercenaries, often no more than government sanctioned death squads, ironically labeled as "contractors".
I repeat my demand of conservatives- you created the mass explosion in the homeless population, now you fix it.
Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm
on Aug 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm
You watch too many movies Boscoli. I'm sure your next reply will be a laundry list of conspiracy theories, so pare us the drama and histrionics already.
Liberalism has done little more than lowered the bar for society in terms of achievement. It enables, creates entitlements, and produced a generation of citizens relying on public support. In your blind desire to offer support, believing that is the only way for the recipients to achieve success, you sap and drain the very thing that made this country great. Self reliance, pride, and work ethic.
I highly doubt that we will ever agree on this topic or find much common ground. I will continue to have faith in the human spirit that anyone, especially in this country, can find a path to success and prosperity. I believe that people can rise to the level of that expectation. You may continue to believe that the only way for this societal endeavor to be achieved is by allowing government to dictate and determine how that is accomplished, sending a clear message to its citizens that there is no need to be creative and strive for success. We'll cover the tab, no worries. But like most liberals, I'm sure you'll sleep better at night and feel less guilty.
Crescent Park
on Aug 11, 2013 at 1:55 pm
on Aug 11, 2013 at 1:55 pm
No doubt the black helicopter-drone-NSA-license plate reader programs are to blame for the BV situation as well. ;-)
Crescent Park
on Aug 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm
on Aug 11, 2013 at 3:17 pm
> Liberals created the dependent, tax ridden, welfare state
> You watch too many movies Boscoli.
> No doubt the black helicopter-drone-NSA-license plate reader programs
Come on Editor ... these are not serious comments they are just flame bait? Do your job and delete this kind of deliberately provocative frivolous and disrespectful nonsense.
Downtown North
on Aug 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm
on Aug 11, 2013 at 6:30 pm
A classic and predictable move CrescentParkAnon, squash and attempt to censor what you don't agree with. Despite your cries for censorship, I still respect your right to express your opinion whether I happen to agree or not. Personally, I would never be so intolerant. No worries though, the truth hurts.
Crescent Park
on Aug 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm
on Aug 12, 2013 at 1:38 pm
First point is opinion. Take out the word Liberal and insert "Democratic Party of the 1930's, 40's, 60's to present" and you have the same statement/opinion---just in fewer words. And btw, I voted for Obama and am hardly concerned, let alone that I actually do agree with the stated opinion.
Second point can be interpreted as a personal comment, but hardly damaging. Flippant at best.
Third point is an obvious attempt at sarcastic humor (indicated by ;-) ) that isn't personal at all.
I was born in SF...so I feel that I can say this...it's a tolerant city until you voice an opinion other than the people who are promoting tolerance. Similar to what is happening on this thread.