Op Ed: Madness at City Hall

SBObservor: State is not doing well: Top 1% pays 50% of the taxes is a very unstable tax base; K-12 ranks #45 nationwide while consuming an automatic 50% of all state general funds mainly now used to provide free education for foreign nationals; K-12 has given up making students proficient in math or english; 37% in this state live in "poverty" on public benefits, and massive vagrancy has overtaken and destroyed the vitality of far too many previously thriving and safe cities; residential neighborhoods under attack from mandatory increasing housing density statutes. ; state has a one trillion dollar unfunded public pension liability and CalPERS ,responsible for much of this deficit cannot even find a chief investment officer to start bringing discipline and productivity to cure this massive fiscal deficit. Not sure where you get these oft-repeated and canned talking points about the "success' of Silicon Valley billionaires, as if it had anything to do with the rest of this state stuck with its aging infrastructure designed for 20 million but now forced to accommodate 40 million persons. Term limits and the public sector union moving into the political vacuum after the year 2000 set this state on a precipitous downward trajectory. Raid the treasury and hire the close relatives is how you turn a once Golden State into one more third world failed state. The best of times, the worst of times - a tale of two states.

Their golden calf and his criminal organization are soon to pay the piper.

Jak, Arnold came into office via a recall, was re-elected. Hence, the attempts today. Was he an R? Not based on his 2nd term policies and legacy... The others were in the 90's (30 years ago!)and also happened to be in charge during some of the worst economic conditions this state has ever experienced. I am not a D, but the facts and figures do not bode well for R's in CA. Not only was the era of Duke and Wilson awful financially, prop 208 was a turning point for many Latinos. Who since, have taken on power in the state as well as becoming the dominate Demographic. No way an R (post Trump) ever wins another Gov in CA via the normal electoral process. The Party has gone off the rails and the number of uneducated, angry old white men left to cry out in fear while waiving their flags and male enhancers, is shrinking faster than their testosterone levels... I would prefer we had more choices, and that our State spent less on bull***t, but this is the game, this is the process. And frankly, the State is doing excellent right now. Budget surplus, economy is on fire, low unemployment, etc. The FOXnews (I mean Chickenlittle) crowd are just scared old people... Not that diff from Edhat's avg Progressive posting how awful it is downtown. People who are afraid of life and changes tend to be fearful of everything else...

S B Observer, if memory serves governors in California have been split about 50/50 between the two parties during my lifetime with no overwhelming trend towards one party or the other in recent decades.

The only reason there is a Gov recall is because this process is the ONLY path for the GOP to ever get a chance at the top job in CA. Yes, its a waste of time and money and they dont have a chance to win, but its the only way the whiners, cry-babies, cheaters and plain old suckers that make up the QOP can get their guy, or person, onto the ballot and get the attention they crave. The irony that comes from Caitlyn Jenner getting into and leading this race cannot be topped. Ever. The same people who HATE trans kids, gender fluid people and the old boring homosexuals, are now putting their money and their might behind a straight up crazy version of who they HATE... the metal pretzel they twist themselves into to support this whole thing is pure comedy. Cringe worthy comedy... Sad that so man people are so easily duped. But then again: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American".

If a Gov is charged and found guilty of committing a felony, he should be removed from office and replaced after an election. Otherwise, let him/her serve the remainder of the term. I think Newsom is a twerp, but he was duly elected, and I am appalled that just holding the retail election is going to cost $276 million dollars, money that could be more productively spent housing the homeless and taking care of the mentally ill.

@Loose. I agree it's a huge waste of money! It's an unfortunate consequence of how we vote. You need to stop watching the commercials and look at what our governor has done... Unfortunately, most people here don't bother to pay attention. It's not some attack against democracy or a bunch of trumpers. It's the few rational thinking people that are saying F*** No!

ACLU forced Reagan's hand to "sign" the closure of state care institutions over 40 years ago. How many times do we have to repeat this. What is now entirely missing is the many decades that passed and the last two decades of Democrat super-majorities in our state offices that have not lifted a finger to undo that ACLU court mandate from way back in the Reagan era. That means years of Hannah-Beth Jackson, Monique Limon, Das Williams and now Michael Bennett who have done nothing, and in fact supported policies and attitudes that made the vagrant mess in this state grow to intolerable and destructive numbers. Continuing to cast blame "Reagan" is offensive and shows you really have no interest solving this issue at all - Are you part of Homeless Inc?

Well said. A lot of people seem to hate the homeless, but it's never clear who they mean.
- The person who has a job but can't afford rent, and is couch surfing?
- The family temporarily living in their minivan because they are in between jobs?
- The mentally ill?
- The drifters who like the weather and like living outdoors?
- The drug addicts?
- The disabled who permanently live in their vehicles?

I think there has GOT to be a cheaper way to house these folks (to prevent wildfires) for the dry season, but this is certainly cheaper than burning the whole damn city down.

And besides Arnold, all dem governors since. overwhelmingly dem in all other offices. So the question is, why haven't you fixed it yet? I mean it's been decades! You have all control to do whatever you want... This comes from a family with a child with mental illness and has been denied a placement during crisis. I do fully support more beds, more support. Just don't be so ignorant to make it a political statement against the right. It's a statement about how horrible a one party state can be.

Here's a little history lesson for you, Byzantium. Read it and weep.

1967 Ronald Reagan is elected governor of California. At this point, the number of patients in state hospitals had fallen to 22,000, and the Reagan administration uses the decline as a reason to make cuts to the Department of Mental Hygiene. They cut 2,600 jobs and 10 percent of the budget despite reports showing that hospitals were already below recommended staffing levels.

1967 Reagan signs the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act and ends the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will, or for indefinite amounts of time. This law is regarded by some as a “patient’s bill of rights”. Sadly, the care outside state hospitals was inadequate. The year after the law goes into effect, a study shows the number of mentally ill people entering San Mateo's criminal justice system doubles.

1969 Reagan reverses earlier budget cuts. He increases spending on the Department of Mental Hygiene by a record $28 million.

1973 The number of patients in California State mental hospitals falls to 7,000.

1981 President Reagan repeals Carter’s legislation with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. This pushes the responsibility of mentally ill patients back to the states. The legislation creates block grants for the states, but federal spending on mental illness declines.

Reagan was not the sole factor in the reduction of bed space for mentally ill patients. But he was a major factor as Governor in California and as President. Another factoid,
I voted for him insuring his second term as President.

9:02 You got too close to your job and it is no longer working for you. Anyone tossing up the barriers you just stated has no interest in fixing this at all. Read up on Operation Roomkey in LA and accept this is what has happened to every other group who has already tried to "help" one person at a time. They turned on every single group that tried. So they all quickly gave up. Welcome sign is no longer lit in this town, and that will be the best thing that ever happened to this population of "will not" grifters. Park your mental cases in Monique Limon and Salud Carbajal's office waiting rooms. because this population falls on their laps; not ours. They get the changes in the law. Or else they now provide sheller in their own office spaces.

Stray: We are not committed to "fix" people, one person at a time at huge public cost. First error. We simply want them off the streets so they stop causing harm to themselves and serious damage to the rest of us. Isolation of this population is step one. So zero tolerance for any squatting camps is step one. Treatment programs in groups that have a demonstrate success track record like Rescue Mission or Salvation Army. is number two, but only after we actually agree to undertake this as a public expense, which we have not. It remains however a very viable charitable option and plenty do donate to support their work. This leaves some form of isolation and confinement as the only other publically funded option. You blew your cover when you claimed "Reagan" closed down state care institutions. That is a lie, and we have gone over that lie endless times here. Debunked 100%. That lie leads to the assumption you are just one more cog in the huge Homeless Inc cash grab - because you lied to manipulate an outcome favorable only to yourself. We have have gone around this issue so many times, we can now smell out the grifters and those hoping to cash in on this issue for themselves. With their tag team follow up cronies cheering this nonsense on. No more status quo. New city council and new rules. And "fixing" this population one person at a time at huge public expense is not one of them.

You're 100% correct, it's a one-person-at-a-time unique solution slog. There is no one-size-fits-all manufacturing paradigm we can deploy here. Stop trying that. These are human beings. They all got here via a million different paths. Three things we don't talk about that are exacerbating the problem: 1. The huge meth addiction problem moving around disguised as a housing shortage. That addiction is a powerfully hungry market that is getting people beheaded in Mexico, and sending people rushing to our border to evade the danger. 2. The rush to maximize the $$$ per Sq Ft on every piece of property is driving rents way high, and pricing bottom-tier renters out. Where do they go? Some move out of the area, commute back in. Some go to their cars or tents, hoping conditions will change. These people are economic refugees. Attitudes like 'move where it's affordable' aren't helpful when investors take over formerly mom-and-pop rentals, jack the rent, and evict everyone. When your new bottom tier renters, who were middle class minutes ago, are now facing rents at $3,000 a month, you're making more homeless. 3. HUGE issue: people experiencing severe mental illness have the right to refuse treatment and remain homeless as long as they wish. Federal courts have set that precedent, and no city or jurisdiction has the power to overcome these rulings. So people need to stop saying, 'enforce the law. Move them on. Round them up. Etc.' The best thing you can do is get as many people indoors as you can, and it's a slog. Once you do that, you'll be left with the truly intractable cases where addiction and/or mental illness is the culprit, about 10-20% of the original homeless population. You need law changes to fix their cases that require amending the California constitution, and any such amendment could be struck down in a court. That's the reality from Ground Zero for those of us working the frontlines on homelessness. (not from Homeless, Inc. A community volunteer.)

New sheriff in town, GenTree.

The John Birch Society meeting must have gotten out early today.

I got here in 1980 worked and paid rent many years mostly rooms or small studio apartments, NO ONE TOLD ME TO LEAVE THEN!!! I got hurt on a job ended up disabled. Now after giving of myself you want to KICK ME OUT! If I should end up homeless I'm going to rent a porta potty put wheels on it and a motor find your yard and set up camp....Demands were put on me at work HERE and it disabled me. What is good for the goose is good for the gander Baby!

California is very e pensive to live and do is Santa Barbara . Why should everyone who can’t afford to live here be subsidized. That’s ridiculous. So because you have an 8th grade education and are working at some crappy place for minimum wage , we should subsidize you so you can live in Santa Barbara comfortably . That’s insane .

Don't expect to be working class serving the community of Santa Barbara either. Workers should live in Lompoc right? Until that gets gentrified next?

Those looking need to upscale their skill sets or downscale their housing expectations. Plenty of places to live in this state that one can even afford on an SSI check. Santa Barbara is not one of them. Don't come here and make demands we are supposed to house you, feed, you and pay for non-marketable job skills.

We could clear out every transient camp in the city for 1.6million. Could probably do it for a lot less as there are salaried staff getting paid to do it already. Just a lack of political will standing in the way.

1.6 Million - that's probably a lot less compared to one of the 50 homeless burning down the Mesa i'd think.

"Entirely new city council and mayor coming up - Nov 2021." We can only hope. It will not happen unless voters with common sense get out and vote. But if it is more of the usual Democrat Committee, Police, Fire and SEIU union choices we'll be stuck with more of the same.

Says someone happily feeding at the public trough.

The one's chosen are supposed to be the ones actually setting our city on fire - and in four months they are going to be transformed into productive, repentant upstanding individuals. For a reality check, see how well LA's Project Roomkey did - recipients now suing the city because they are not doing enough. Expect the same here, when the four month period is over. Wails, cries and more extortion threats on command. And that will be coming just from Homeless Inc. The recipient's lawsuits will come soon afterwards. The city has no business running anything like this - this is a state and federal care institution mission and Monique Limon (D) and Salud Carbajal (D) have failed us as badly as our current city council. If there is one place to squat in this town for free, it is in the offices of state Senator Monque Limon (D) and Congressional Rep Salud Carbajal (D) and it is well past time for the city to send them there directly. City can pass a resolution that states it will not be the sole provider of last resort for this increasing vagrancy population, and henceforth all efforts to house the vagrant population falls exclusively on the state and federal government, though their elected representatives - Limon , Bennett and Carbajal. City Attorney Ariel Calone - make it legal and make it stick, Or hand in your resignation, if you don't want to get fired by the new city council.

I’m hoping that the individuals chosen for this program will be the ones most likely to get long term benefit from the four-month assistance. Some people truly can be helped up and out of their homelessness. I really hope the participants are chosen carefully so that society as a whole gets some bang from our bucks. (It’s not just about the money, but taxpayers do have a right to expect their money to be used in the most efficacious manner.)

You can't FORCE vagrants to go into rehab... That's why Gov. Reagan was forced to close the mental institutions, the ACLU WAS GOING TO SUE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.... The County provides FREE drug and alcohol rehab already... NO one uses it.

A church near me has opened their parking lot to 'homeless' vehicles a few years ago. It took about a month before one of their patrons offered sex for money to me at the local Starbucks. It still happens. Opening church parking lots only spreads their 'lifestyle' choices to middle class neighborhoods.

Pit I am not suggesting forcing people into lodging but I am suggesting making it incredibly difficult for them to camp or live on public land unless it's BLM and away from cities/towns where people want and need to use parks, sidewalks, libraries, etc. I don't think people should have the right to camp in parks or on sidewalks. These are public places that belong to all and by squatting on it you are taking it out of the hands of the general public and prohibiting both necessary use and enjoyment. The courts said you can evict people from camping on public land if you can offer them "reasonable alternative accommodation." I am not saying we force people into the accommodation. I am saying beggars cannot be choosers. If it is made undesirable and difficult to camp on public land that should be able to be used freely by all, then people will either accept to vacate the cities and go into BLM wilderness and fend for themselves, or they will accept an offer of housing in a more affordable location than Beverly Hills or Manhattan or Santa Barbara. We should build more housing, but only where it make financial sense to do so.

SBT, I believe this is called incarceration. Luckily we still have a constitution and I doubt even the most rightist justices on the Supreme Court could find some original intent to forcing people to live somewhere if they haven't committed a crime.....