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.

Concern Mounting over a Relocation of Homeless: Where Will They Go Next?

I've been contacted by a number of folks concerned about some signage being put up around a couple of lots where we know there are significant populations of homeless in campsites.

"I was given a heads up that they will begin trespassing people off of this property on Wednesday" said one concerned citizen, speaking about a privately owned lot in the vicinity of North Palafox street and Beggs Lane in Pensacola.

When I asked where these folks would go once removed, I was told "probably to jail if they don't leave.  Also, I don't know where they will go other than [the county's property] at Beggs Lane--which is already overflowing."

But then I was sent this picture, below, which seems to indicate we will be clearing out the county's property in that area as well.  My natural question is this--where will these folks go if removed?

The individual told me next-"This is going to make the situation much worse--these were posted today all along Beggs Lane...."

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

Cold Weather Shelters in Escambia County: How'd it Go during the Recent Cold Snap?

So far as I've been told, there were no hypothermia deaths during the recent area cold weather event...

Leading up to the recent three-day, near record cold snap the area went through last weekend--there were naturally concerns about those less fortunate in our area.  Specifically, there were worries about vulnerable citizens and the unhoused who may not have been able to weather the storm.

So I asked questions about what our plan was.  I blogged about it too.  And I spoke with folks intimately familiar with the homeless community as well as county staff at EOC.

Obviously--we are not Buffalo, New York, where they saw an immense blizzard and snowstorm that covered their city with up to four feet of snow and where three dozen + of their citizens perished due to that historic cold weather event.  But we were going to be below freezing for multiple days in Escambia County-- so I was concerned.  I wasn't alone in my concern(s).

The county did not open any of our facilities for cold weather shelters.  

Nor did we pay any group or entity any tax dollars to shelter folks from the cold.  

We had neither a contract nor an MOU/MOA with any entity to house citizens from the cold--but rather a verbal agreement with existing shelters (Waterfront Rescue Mission and REAP Lodge/Max Well Respite Center) to house those who needed sheltering from the storm as the temperatures dipped below 40 degrees.

Having now spoken to several individuals who were out and about during the cold weather event, I'm told that, with a few small exceptions (one couple was turned away as they had been previously banned.  And they were subsequently housed at a hotel for three days at someone else's expense.  A woman and her two children were turned away from one shelter the day prior to the cold weather event as the temperature had not dropped enough to trigger the sheltering protocols--but subsequently admitted to the shelter the next day when it was below 40 degrees) the plan worked as envisioned.  So far as I've been told--no citizens have perished from hypothermia in this last cold snap.

According to an individual with intimate, firsthand knowledge;  "We did outreach and drove around checking on homeless populations and offered rides.  Most declined stating that they did not want to go to a shelter due to the need to look after their belongings that would have been left behind.  At the Max Well Center we ended up housing 8 additional women and two children above the folks aready there, and at Waterfront [rescue mission] we never got to the capacity of 200 --we were at about 150 citizens throughout tht event."

I'm glad we had an action plan, and thankful that no citizens perished.  I'm of the understanding that the protocol will be refined going forward to eliminate any snafus--but that also most who were a part of the entire evolution (on the ground, in the know) feel it went about as well as could be expected.

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?

"There is Hope" Endorsed by State Representative Michelle Salzman to Assist Escambia's Homeless

The letter above was sent out last week and forwarded to me by Mr. Caleb Houston.  Mr. Houston's organization, "There is Hope" is working to help the community tackle the various challenges associated with the homelessness issue we're all seeing throughout the area.  I have not found a webpage for this group, but this appears to be the group's facebook page.

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

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....