Working together on the Lingering Issues resulting from the Homelessness Population Explosion in the County

 

District 1 constituents are frustrated with the exploding issue of the homeless
engaging in dysfunctional (often illegal) behavior in their neighborhoods.

I had the opportunity to meet with Sheriff Chip Simmons and his top leadership staff this week, in his office, on a topic that is on everyone's minds today.  What can we do about the homeless that are engaging in dysfunctional conduct in the county?  What can the county do, what can the Sheriff's office do, and what can the community do?

I was joined in this meeting by Tim Day, the head of code enforcement and Jesse Casey, the District 1 Field Representative.

We are receiving a lot of constituent complaints about the conduct of some of these homeless individuals who are engaging in theft and vandalism of property and other behavior including drug use and in some instances sex crimes.  Constituents want action and their frustration is palpable.

The meeting was productive and the Sheriff and his staff want to assist.  The attorneys for the ECSO have been working with the county attorney on updating our ordinance relating to panhandling in the roadways, code enforcement has been working in conjunction with ECSO on some particular areas in the  county where the problems associated with the homeless  have become acute and untenable.

Here is the thing though: nobody wants to vilify or stigmatize any citizen.  Some of these folks are legitimately down on their luck and need help.  The good news is we have resources and we all, collectively, want to help those that want help.  And we will continue to assist and support those in the community that are serving the homeless and assisting them with breaking free of being homeless.

But the others who are engaging in illegal activities, the ones who are trespassing and or dumping trash all over the place trashing some neighborhoods, walking in roadways banging on windows, aggressively bothering motorists and stealing from private property to finance their substance abuse addictions--these are the ones whose behaviors cannot be condoned.

So there are a specific set of strategies that we are going to be implementing going forward.  We will find ways to quickly identify owners of private properties where illegal trespassers are camping unlawfully in order to streamline the trespasser removal process.  I believe the issuance of civil citations will also be on the table for violators/trespassers--mandating these folks appear in court.  And I do believe we will work toward an enforcable county ordinance that will assist the ECSO's efforts to keep aggressive, rude and obnoxious panhandlers out of our roadways and intersections.  There will be other tools which will also be used that are still being explored.

Additionally, I am going to seek funding for dedicated law enforcement staff at the ECSO to directly engage the homeless in the county working closely with code enforcement.  The city has a couple of officers who are doing this currently utilizing CRA funding and I hear this is working well for them.  So I would like to do something similar in the county in the areas where the problem is becomming unbearable.

So much more to come on this---but meanwhile I just want folks to know it is being worked.

Do We Already Run an Ad-Hoc Tent City for the Homeless on County Property?

I've long advocated that the county locate homeless in secure safe tent city environments away from established neighborhoods.  My idea always meets resistance, unfortunately.  But are we implementing this idea already?

Homelessness is an issue that is pervasive around the country.

Solutions that last and are also effective are elusive.

What is the scope of the issue locally?  Well, your guess is as good as mine.  We have heard numbers from 750 total to up into the thousands.  Truth is--nobody knows for sure how many at any given time we have here.

Folks familiar with the issue tell me that the heuristic they use is "1/3."  1/3 of the homeless are there by choice, 1/3 are afflicted with undiagnosed/untreated mental illness and/or drug addiction and are content where they are, and 1/3 are truly down on their luck, out of work and suffering medical, substance abuse, or other ailements.

We all want to help those that want help.

In Escambia County, we have earmarked $4 Million for a number of initiatives to help assist with the problem, provide resources and assistance for homeless in our community, and to pay for counseling, substance abuse support and housing.

We have a number of citizens who want us to do more.  They come to meetings, they email, and they call.

They don't want to see these folks, they don't want them in their community.  In many respects, I agree with them, and I sympathize with their plight.  I mean, who wants to have their possessions stolen from their front yard/porch?  Who wants to witness grown men urinating publicly in view of children, who wants to find a shopping cart full of bags containing human feces and other disgusting rubbish dumped on their front yard? Who wants to risk having their whole neighborhood/subdivision burn down because of a carless campfire accident by a homeless campsite in the adjacent, wooded lot? And who wants to deal with aggressive panhandlers--many of whom are homeless? (all real, local examples, by the way)

Answer--nobody.

The Atlantic did a piece the other day that illuminated many aspects of this issue.  Interesting read.

Back to Escambia---I always advocated that the county establish a tent city AWAY from citizens out in the rural woods where homeless could camp and receive support (food, water, job training, medical assistance, mental health care, security, etc.) in a controlled, supportive, and safe environment without infringing on the rights of citizens and their neighborhoods in the more densely populated areas of the county.  I also advocated that we run a bus between this campsite and the county's transit hub a couple of times daily and provide the homeless residents a bus pass so they could travel about.  This sort of model is done already--- currently, privately on a small scale with the small homeless camp site called "Satoshi Forest."  And that concept works, so I wanted to scale it up.  Interestingly--we had a group of students also come to the conclusion that a camp site away from the city would work.  (Minute 13:00 of this video)

Unfortunately--this concept got no traction.  So we are spending the money we were awarded via a grant on different approaches.  We will see what happens with that.

Meanwhile---now comes word from a source that has intimate, firsthand knowledge about county property off of Beggs Lane and the number of campsites there currently.  When I spoke to this individual yesterday--I was floored by what he said.  "Jeff, there are currently between 100 and 200 campsites on that property already."

That is a massive number.  So that begs the question--are we already, tacitly yet deliberately, operating a tent city for the homeless on County Property?

If we are, and if we are going to perpetuate this location and model--then lets by all means add in the wrap around services that are also needed at a site with this many humans living within it:

Security, dumpsters, portable toilets, washing stations, and portable showers.  Let's also do some outreach, job training, food distribution, counseling, and health care assessments.

If we are going to do it, let's do it right and not apply half-measures and "hope" for the best.

Homeless "Encampments" Popping Up all over the County--Citizens NOT Happy About it

The "shanty-town" (pictured 2-1-23) homeless encampment groing on Mobile Hwy at Michigan Avenue in Escambia County is drawing the ire of citizens that want something done to clean it up......

"Is this what we want visitors to Escambia County to see at the first exit coming off the bridge into our area?"  The caller asked dryly.  And angrily.

He's obviously fed up with what he is seeing in his neighborhood off of Scenic Highway where, right next to the Dairy Queen/Gas station off of the exit and very near dozens of multi-million dollar homes and properties, there is a fledgling pop-up encampment growing right off the side of the road. 

"They are so brazen, they have even brought a couch and placed it right on the side of the road on Scenic Highway--they are sitting on it and eye-balling us as we sit in traffic--it's ridiculous!"

He is heated.  He wants action, he wants this blight to be addressed by the county.  He is not alone, either,  because we have had multiple issues come up over the last year or so, and this issue seems to be growing, not subsiding....

Like issues in my district where we had a massive forest fire erupt that could have taken out an entire subdivision off of Hwy 98 due to a campfire in a homeless camp getting out of control in the adjacent wooded property.

Like what the city dealt with under the I-110 bridge where drug use, crime, theft, prostitution, and other illicit activity was rampant until the city disbursed that campground.

Like what we are seeing on Herman Street....Like what we saw under the bridge on Brent Lane... 

And like what we are now seeing in an area off of Mobile Hwy (Formerly D1, now D3)  Where a group of about 9 homeless individuals have sent up a miniature "shanty-town" right in the FDOT easement of Mobile Hwy------directly in front of the Publix Grocery store there and multiple small businesses.  I have had numerous complaints about this from multiple citizens.

Something has to be done.  This isn't Portland, this isn't Seattle nor is it San Franscisco.  And we don't

What's going on at the Homeless Camp(s) being funded by the City?

Wednesday in the PNJ there was an article discussing multiple entities that the city has funded to help take care of Pensacola's homeless.

Several city council members weighed in suggesting the county needs to help fund these groups.  One was reportedly running out of money, according to this article.

The BCC the next day decided to hold off on making firm decisions on any of this money we have allocated from ARPA for homeless inssue ($4.1 Million) ---until we can discuss all the issues in much more depth at an upcoming committee of the whole.

Later in the evening Tursday night, (1:17:10 of this video)several speakers showed up to our BCC regular meeting in order to speak to the homeless issues, and at the very end of the meeting some scathing allegations were leveled against some workers associated with these camps.

Allegations included the misallocation of funds, mistreatment of the homeless, allowing intoxicated adult males in a tent camp with children and women, and one now former employee of one of the city funded camps cried as she described homeless individuals being subject to a "shake down" for money and their EBT cards, random drug testing at all hours (including for children) as well as physical intimidation against her by folks associated with this camp.

Friday morning I spoke to an individual who was named by the speakers and I was sent a chilling recording between her and another individual with REAP---and it got heated as one person was fired.

Discussion/arguments centered around a missing $5,000 dollars and a missing receipt book.  When the male voice asked about this five thousand, the female who was forced out said "that money is not REAP's it belongs to Fearless [community]"

"You're out...I want your keys and and I want you gone." the male voice said angrily.

"I want this all in writing" said the female in the recording.

the recording goes about 9 minutes and is a back and forth between the two with allegations being hurled back and forth.  It's not a pleasant listen.

Meanwhile--I'm now hearing other allegations of misappropriated donated items somehow not being brought to the shelter facilities and one member of this group stashing items donated at her house "on Scenic" with a pool .  What the heck?!?

Sounds like a disorganized, dysfunctional mess.  And now they are running out of the hundreds of thousands the city gave them and they want the county's cash now?

Not for my vote, not until we get to the bottom of all these allegations and mismanagement/mistreatment. 

Not until we figure out just exactly, precisely what is going on at these homeless camps/shelters being funded by the City Council and Mayor.

Can We Answer the 40% Question First?

Dealing with the homeless issues in the county is an ongoing concern.

The city is dealing with issues arising from a growing population of the homeless or the "unhoused."  ("Unhoused people" is a term I am hearing a lot lately.  Maybe this is the new PC term we are all supposed to be using now?)

So the county has $4 Million in Federally-provided funds to help address the issue(s) surrounding homelessness.  And the county has discussed this on a number of occassions.

We'll be discussing it again this Thursday evening.  What do we do with the money, how do we distribute it to help with the issues and what does victory in dealing with this problem look like?

We settled last meeting on having staff bring a process for us to award nonprofits that work in this space individual allocations from this $4Million corpus of money.  Then progress can be tracked, multiple appropaches (and cash awards) can be made to vetted, fully licensed and documented legitimate 501(c)3's to assist families and individuals that are in need find what they need to once again become productive, normal members of civilized society.  So that part is good, and I look forward to supporting multiple approaches and organizations that have already rolled up their sleeves and proven they can assist with this issue in our community.  

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ESTIMATED UP TO 40% OF HOMELESS WHO DON'T WANT HELP?

My question to several who work in this space is simple, yet the concrete answers never come back.  But this question is just as important as the question about what we do for folks who are truly needy, down on their luck and want help to be once again productive and off the streets.

Whatever we do, I won't vote for anything that enables dysfunctional lifestyle choices (continued addiction, street crime, drug abuse, vandalism, trespassing, littering, etc.).  And therein lies the problem.

I'm told up to 40% of these "unhoused persons" are quite content where they are and doing what they do.

Unfathomable as it may seem, yes, it is true.  These folks, this up to 40%, do not want to give up the drugs and booze, they want to panhandle, they will continue to steal, litter, or do dysfunctional things like attack other unhoused persons or run around with their genetalia hanging out of their clothes, defecating in public, starting fires in their campgrounds (that subsequently get out of control) or dumping shopping cart loads of feces in bags in peoples' yards.

So yes, we can all agree to sing Kumbaya and help the majority that truly want help and want to break the cycle of their situation(s).

But as a commissioner serving compassionate citizens who care about communities and neighborhoods and safety----helping folks cannot also require that we tolerate dysfunctional destructive behavior that erodes the quality of life for citizens, children, neighborhoods, and communities that want to be clean, safe, and crime and dysfunction free.

So we need to know what we are going to do to help the 60% AND how to deal with the 40%

Can we answer the 40% question first, please?

Big Decisions on Homeless Locally this Week?

The city council will be meeting this week to discuss the homeless situation in the city--particularly the homeless campsite under the I-110 bridge that the city is desperately seeking to clear.

Three options have been put out, and several entities have expressed "interest" in helping.

And there is over $3Million in federal funding in play to apply toward a long range solution and/or strategy to address the issue.

I've spoken to a city council representative, and I have spoken with several experts in this space.

I believe the city should take a step back and re-evaluate their next move(s) carefully.  I believe they should work together with the county on a solution.  Thus far--there has been no coordination.

So hopefully on Wednesday, the Pensacola City Council will press the pause button and bring in County staff to the discussion.  I would not be opposed to a joint meeting on this topic specifically.

But the idea of dumping the campsite in the county with no coordination, no permits, no notice-----yeah, that's not going to happen.  It only would have happened if folks just did it commando style--unlawfully without site approvals, permits, or required permissions.

I'm told that Pensacola/Escambia should consider doing what Okaloosa County is doing on this issue--I'm told their model is "working."

I'd like to know more about it--but I'm not opposed to looking at someone else's best practices that are successful.

But for my part, in my opinion, and for my vote----I think any such facility should be far away from suburbs and existing neighborhoods.  Build a facility out in the woods, far away from any residence, business, or suburban community. 

I also think we need to define what success looks like so that outcomes can be measured.  Touchy-feely feel good platitudes don't cut it.  I want to see numbers.  I want to see outcomes.  I want to know how folks measure success.

We also need to look at how such a facility for the homeless will be funded going forward so that any such concept can stand on it's own two feet and be viable with private support--not necessarily relying on the public sector for funding.

So there is much to be discussed, much to be worked out.  And there is no reason to rush.  Anyone can circle a date on a calendar and say "This will be gone by THIS date."

But as we have seen with respect to the I-110 campground, for example, often times these dates will slide to the right.  Significantly.  Particularly if they are poorly planned and hastily organized.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong with This Plan?? Marlette Manipulation 33

 

Andy Marlette's cartoon in this morning's PNJ attempts to draw parallels between Republican leadership in Florida and locally with the acceptance of anarchy and lawlessness in Blue cities like Seattle and Portland.  To do this, he pictures the Pensacola I-110 under the bridge homeless encampment and tent city.  Of course, his equivocation on this misses the mark like most of his cartoons do consistently.  Cities like Seattle that allowed entire chunks of downtown areas to be occupied by lawless criminals had nothing at all to do with homeless individuals desperately clinging to existence in Pensacola Florida.  Out west, it was all about ideology and certain quasi-political groups like Antifa flexing their muscle, showing what they could and would do in cities run by like-minded politicians in places like Portland and Seattle.

The homeless encampment in Pensacola under the I-110 bridge, by contrast, is not a political statement being orchestrated by partisan activists---and that's the huge difference between what is happening here and what happens in Seattle and Portland.

Insidiously--Andy conflates the two issues even as he knows they are different.

The issue under the bridge in Pensacola is about folks who are truly down on their luck and are homeless and desperate.  Sure--there is dysfunctional behavior and some criminal activity taking place in the encampment.  Yes, much of it has not been discussed publicly for political expediency as the city desperately tries to make the problem disappear by dispersing it out to the county---which is a disastrous plan nobody supports and for which nobody has even bothered to properly plan for.

But the Seattle "CHAZ" debacle is nothing like what's happening in Pensacola, and Andy knows it.

Nope-- this issue is about the city attempting to move a stubborn eyesore problem out of their viewshed.  And meanwhile--noone has reached out to the county to obtain permits or permission.  The city hasn't attempted to explain this plan to county residents in Bellview who ABSOLUTELY do not want this homeless camp in their neighborhood.

They are just planning on doing it--which I will not support and which I will actively oppose.

So the picture, above, is much more apropos than what Andy presented.  He's making a political attack out of the desperation of the homeless whereas my rendition, above, is a humorous jab at the folks who are naive and believe they can just move this camp next to an existing neighborhood and such a move will not have devastating consequences on the area surrounding such an encampment.

Remember--they are not telling the truth about the dysfunctional activities going on right now around the current site under the I-110.  They don't want you to know about the problems assiciated with this tent city.  This way, they can pat you on the head, tell you everything is alright, and mollify you into accepting this campsite in your neighborhood.  See the way this works?

Unfortunately I see right through them and their plan.  Others do, too.

Where Should the Homeless Base Camp Go? Part II: How About to a BASE Camp in the Woods--Away from Existing Neighborhoods?

Some have suggested relocating the city's homeless encampment out into the woods, deep in the woods, away from established neighborhoods with the provision of services to be "brought-out" to the camp as necessary.  Interesting idea......

Ever since the issue of the relocation of homeless individuals to the county from the city erupted like Mount Vesuvius last Tuesday----many folks have expressed opposition.  Loudly.  Forcefully.

Not surprisingly--not ONE of the folks I have spoken with has expressed any hatred, disdain, or contempt for these homeless folks camped out in the city under the bridge.  To the contrary and to a person--I have heard just the opposite.  County constituents truly have compassion and sympathy for these homeless folks.  But the sympathy, compassion, and concern by citizens in my district for these folks who are down on their luck does not equate to support for relocation of such homeless folks to areas near their neighborhoods.  And I agree.  I share this sentiment.

Now, cynics will say---They're just a bunch of NIMBY's!   

Perhaps some might look it this issue that way--but I disagree.  Allow me provide the following distinction(s):

 

As a county commissioner, I have to make tough votes for projects that follow all laws, codes, and ordinances and that provide enhancements to communities (retail stores, apartments, houses).  Even when a person, company, or entity has followed all national, state, and local ordinances to lawfully construct a "(fill in the blank)"  There are still some nearby residents who not only disapprove--but who want to rip out my throat for having the audacity to APPROVE the "(Fill in the blank)"  Even when lawful--even if BENEFICIAL.  

On the flip side of this coin is a proposed homeless encampment of 100 or more persons,  sleeping in tents near a residential neighborhood, where apparently proponents of such a "facility" have publicly voiced a plan to establish such a camp regardless and in contravention to what any neighbor might say or think and who have simultaneously NOT yet followed any of the necessary state or local ordinances to establish such an encampment.

I'll leave it to the reader to work out who the NIMBY is and who the concerned residents are in the above two scenarios....

So what should be done about this situation, then? you might ask

Look--I'm not an expert on homelessness.  It's tough and complex.  I've made efforts to help folks from time to time via volunteering time and money and resources to help these folks.  But it's a big problem.

The homeless advocate will tell you it is good to locate these folks near neighborhoods so such neighbors will view the homeless as "humans."  Additionally, the advocates will say having them near established communities will allow them to walk or bike to get groceries and supplies from nearby retail shops and ready access to healhcare, public transportation, and wrap-around services.  Fair enough.

The concerned neighbor might believe that, but might also fear that homeless nearby will engage in trash dumping, illegal drug use, prostitution, panhandling, petty theft of property from homes and stores, and urination/defecation in public.  Such homeowners worry about degredation of property values, safety and security of children and elderly, and neighborhood blight....

Maybe the advocate and the neighbor are both onto some truth.  (hint--They are!)

Regardless--location of a camp near a neighborhood will not help improve a neighborhood.  That is an axiom all can agree upon.  If it did/does--we wouldn't be discussing it right now.

So where do we put them?

Now that the city/state/regional homeless reduction task force has been given lots of taxpayer money ($3 million) to work toward solutions---how about this idea:

Purchase or lease a large parcel of land out in the woods, far away from nearby neighbors.

Set up tent sites, portable showers, portable toilets, and portable office trailers.

Twice a week (or more frequently as the budget and logistics permit), at regular times, bring in the service providers (health, dental, social work, substance abuse counseling, faith-based groups, education, job training, etc.  etc.  etc.   etc...........)

Bus in wholesome fresh fruit, vegetables, and other staples for consumption by the camp residents.

Twice daily, run a bus to the bus transportation hub (so these folks can catch a linked route bus to work or other appointments)

Twice daily, run a bus from the transportation hub back to base camp.

Pay for private security and have a zero tolerance policy for illegal drug use, violation of law, and/ or

Where Should the Homeless Base Camp Go? Part I-- Binary Choice

 

You cannot say you will achieve an unrealistic and un achievable deadline to do something by the book while simultaneously declaring  a deadline for such action that is not doable if it is indeed to be done by the book.  This is a binary choice.  You'll either do it NOT by the book, or you will do it after your stated deadline by the book or NOT by the book.  One way or the other--cannot be both.....and cannot be done in 20 days

So the city has proclaimed that by November 24th, 20 days from now, they will clear the area under I-110 of about 100 homeless men and women encamped there.  

Someone leaked to the press the locations where this group of homeless will be "relocated."

One of those locations was/is outside of the city limits--in the County.  In District 1.

Of course--I was not notified of this before it was leaked to the press and I began getting angry phone calls and emails from nearby residents who are justifiably concerned and understandably opposed to this camp site coming within a stone's throw of where they live and have purchased homes.

And I agree with these residents, and I stand with these residents in opposition.

Everyone at county planning and zoning has told me they have not received an application for the permitting of this site for such use.  Depending upon what is planned to be constructed/erected there--significant coordination and planning would be necessary to obtain the necessary permits, plans, and authorizations---not to mention the construction of the roads necessary for the trucks to service the porta potties that would necessarily be required.

All of which creates the apprehension that this deadline cannot be met utilizing the county's Houston Avenue site---unless somebody facilitates the mass migration (bus caravans, trucks, etc.) from I-110 site to Houston site----without getting the permits first.  This is what has me and my constituents concerned.

You're either: 

---being fallaciously unrealistic by publicly proclaiming you'll have the "area in the city under I-110 cleared out before Thanksgiving"

OR

--you fully intend to make the unachievable deadline and simply take the NIKE approach and (Just DO IT) ----regardless of the status of permits, licensess and authorization.

It's one or the other---can't be both.  Binary choice.

So, task force and city of Pensacola---which is it?

(On) "Houston, We Have a Problem...."

Some folks have come up with the brilliant idea to move a massive homeless camp out of the city and now into the county, in District 1.  Oh, and they haven't talked with the nearby residents, the planning and zoning department, county administration, or anyone else at the county.  They just went straight to the press with the plan.  😏 

 

As I discussed in part II of Dumb Ideas that will likely be DOA (Dead on Arrival) the issue of establishing a homeless encampment very near existing neighborhoods was the topic.

That post got instantaneously crushed with hits, and the phone calls came subsequently.

I have now heard from and had the opportunity to speak with one individual in particular with intimate knowledge of the topic and the locations the homeless task force had been scouting.

And first off--full disclaimer:  I support the work of the homeless task force, I support doing whatever we can to assist folks who are down on their luck and not homeless by choice.  But it has to be planned, transparent, and most of all----in an appropriate location that will not negatively impact existing neighbors.  (preferrably way out in the woods away from other existing neighbors)

According to this trusted source with whom I spoke Saturday, the announcement came prematurely.  "We all knew they were looking at multiple sites--but they should not have given the specific site locations so prematurely.  Congratulations--now they have doomed this site!" said this individual, who continued "Look, that (Houston Avenue, County District 1) site is a good location;  It is large and has some nearby ammenities that these folks need--but I disagree with them putting this out so early.  It's like, they have asked for my opinions, I give them, and then they do not listen and do the exact opposite!"  this individual stated.

So, in doing additional research on the site that will apparently be the frontrunner for these downtown interests for the homeless camp they want out of the city--it appears there could be some problems. 

 Zoning, while it apparently meets the initial zoning--it may not meet the size requirement nor the locational criteria.  More to come on that.

But the truly insidious action would be if this group---or any group---just simply starts moving folks to this parcel of land without proper permits, licenses, and approvals.  And with the self-imposed, city proclamation of having these individuals cleared out from under the I-110 bridge by 11-24-21-------This appears to leave only 23 days for any group desiring to use this parcel as a homeless camp to get ALL necessary state and local health and operational permits to do a camp at this location.

Staff has not been approached and know NOTHING about this.

The County Administrator has not been approached and tells me he knows NOTHING about this.

Of course--nobody has called the commissioner of that district nor has anyone bothered to talk to the actual constituents who live in that neighborhood.  But those constituents were blindsided with this plan in the press, and have subsequently voiced their collective displeasure with this idea via multiple angry calls to my office.

23 days is simply not doable if these folks intend to ram this through and do it with appropriate

Ideas Likely to Be DOA Part II

The idea of downtown "interests" moving thier under the bridge tent city problem out of the city and dumping a homeless encampment in an area of already significant blight within D1, in an area and neighborhood we have actively worked to clean up, with no notice and no communication?  Yeah, this brilliant idea is DOA..... 

Some ideas that get thrown out should die as soon as they escape someone's mouth.

Especially the dumb ones.  

Particularly the really ridiculously dumb ones.

I got blindsided on Tuesday of this past week with a frantic phone call that went a little something like this.  "Jeff, they're going to dump a homeless campground in your district!"

"What?!?  Who is---and where?"  was my response.

On Wednesday, the very next day, I asked administrator Wes Moreno about it.  He told me he hadn't heard anything about this and wasn't keen on the idea.  "I'll look into it to see what I can find out, but I am not aware of this--it's the first I'm hearing of it" he said.

Then between Wednesday and yesterday--my office received multiple angry phone calls from concerned residents on Houston Avenue in District 1.

I can assure you--there has been no coordination with the county on this "plan."  NO coordination/no communication.

We all care about folks that are down on their luck and find themselves in this predicament----but some effort must be given to thinking through the location of where to house potentially hundreds of homeless in tents.  Dumping this sort of an encampment in a neighborhood?

No, that's not going to fly.

An email I received on the topic, below, sums up the residents' fears and concerns.  The email's author also put's his finger on the jugular vein of the issue in short order:

"The proposal to move more homeless into the NEIGHBORHOOD does not seem to be a practical approach to clean up any  already blighted area.My heart goes out to any person or family that finds them self homeless.But by putting Downtown' problem onto other Neighborhoods isn't the way..There has got to be a better solution to this problem. I do not have an answer to Pensacola's homeless problem, but by moving Downtown's  problem to any neighborhood becomes someone else's problem. This can't be Pensacola's long term answer to the homeless problem. Let it remain Downtown's problem until there is a better more permanent solution. As for now bringing an unknown number of people into this area which is already stressed will be the wrong answer."

It is the wrong answer, it will be DOA....