Supervisors Greenlight Homeless Housing on Hollister Ave

By the edhat staff

Santa Barbara County Supervisors approve 90 tiny homes for homeless individuals on the former Juvenile Hall site.

After an unanimous vote, the contract with DignityMoves and Good Samaritan pushes forward to build the community at 4500 Hollister Ave as supportive housing for individuals living in encampments in the immediate area. 

Named La Posada, this community will have 90 detached one-room homes with a bed, heating, air conditioning, and lockable doors. Each resident will receive intensive case management, three meals a day, mental and physical healthcare, with 24/7 site security. Alcohol, drugs, and visitors are not permitted.

La Posada rendering (courtesy)

“Permanent housing is the longer-term goal, and La Posada closes the gap between living outdoors and housing stability, where residents can be safe and receive the critical supportive services needed,” DignityMoves states.

This marks the third DignityMoves project in Santa Barbara County. The first housing site was completed last year in the downtown area, named Santa Barbara Street Village, housing 34 homeless residents.

Earlier this month, Hope Village broke ground at 2131 Southside Parkway in Santa Maria. The 94-room community will be operated by Good Samaritan Shelter and provide services for 4 populations. 10 of the rooms will be for Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley, an organization specializing in the needs of transitional age youth between 18 to 24, many of whom are leaving the foster care system.

In collaboration with Dignity Health’s Marian Regional Medical Center, 30 of the rooms will provide recuperative/respite care, which allows individuals experiencing homelessness to have a safe place to rest and recover. 10 rooms will be for veterans and the remaining 44 rooms will be for individuals and couples who are unsheltered. 

DignityMoves anticipates opening the doors of Hope Village to residents by August of 2023.

Hope Village in Santa Maria (courtesy)

For information on DignityMoves visit

Edhat Staff

Written by Edhat Staff

What do you think?


18 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment


  1. This project will make a nice bookend in conjunction with the plans to convert the super 8 into the old town opium den. The neighborhood around modic and hollister really seemed to be on the up and up, but this new project will help slow the businesses in the area and keep property values from rising. Thankfully, there is a new program in the works to actually address the problems the “homeless” are suffering from instead of pretending all they need is a house.

    • “Cheap and Easy”
      The words used by the county and project administrators for choosing the Hollister location.
      Cheap and easy in exchange for upsetting a few thousand local residents.
      Cheap and easy for a project that will potentially impact the local neighborhood for the foreseeable future.
      Cheap and easy for a project ill fit in the center of our community’s highest concentration of youth facilities.
      If I came to my boss with a solution that upset thousands of people while alternatives exist, and presented my leg work as ‘cheap and easy’, I would be fired.
      Dignity moves just needs a 3 year lease on land. Why not by the airport? Why upset so many people when there are alternatives?

    • Given only a handful of days notice to express their opinions, roughly 700 local residents provided a thoughtful plan to support this facility at a different location. That’s at least 700 people who expressed their opposition to the 4500 Hollister location. 700 supporters, potential donors, etc that this project would gain if moved to the alternative county site provided.
      The ‘supporters’ would likely also still support the project the alternative location. Oddly this all fell on deaf ears with our county sups.

  2. Great to hear! There’s been a lot of NIMBYs on Nextdoor starting petitions to shoot this down. I’m glad compassion, reason and sensibility won the day. My kids have played volleyball, basketball and worked out at the Page Youth Center for years. Never once did we have any issues with the homeless living in the creek bed and wooded areas near by. Now, with housing just for them (no visitors and 24/7 security), the fear mongers should feel safe. But no, there’s something more to their fanatic opposition of this, it’s fear. Fear that homeless shelter means more homeless, that homeless means criminal, etc etc…. Good job Sups! Keep up the good work!

    • What’s a cool word or acronym for a person who has no skin in the game, only stands to benefit, and likes to insult others by calling them NIMBYs?
      Seems reasonable that people have concerns now given the circumstances, why insult them? I haven’t heard of any petitions yet, but regardless it shouldn’t take a petition for the county to work with these people. In this case, the county gave essentially 0 notice, and did 0 to work with the local community. This doesn’t need to be a ‘if you’re not for us then you’re against us’ topic.

    • “This doesn’t need to be a ‘if you’re not for us then you’re against us’ topic.” – It’s not. There are petitions against this. I, and others, don’t agree that it will endanger the safety of the neighborhood or the kids at the fields and youth sports facility (my “skin in the game” if you haven’t figured that out) as the petition I read focused on.
      Who’s insulting? You sound like you are, actually. You’ll be deleted of course and so will I. Maybe try again without the insulting attitude.

    • Sacjon, my apologies. Appreciate your comments. I do think we need that alternative word, but off topic..
      Probably lots of things the county could have done to ease the adjacent neighbors concerns, but I think their message came off as they just don’t care. A little heads up, feedback, and compromise would have gone a long way.
      The shelter is good, the scale/size is crazy. No residential neighborhood wants a large surprise hotel built across the street from their houses that they get 0 say in. At a min, hotel type planning process, and zoning restrictions should apply for all of these.
      For general safety, crime, drug use concerns 1 idea would be for the county to apply the same rules we apply to other forms of transient housing. Give the neighbors the tools and processes to ease their concerns. vaca rentals for example give the neighborhood tools to address poorly managed properties. The criteria for maintaining a good neighbor status is clearly defined. Neighbors are empowered and can take a chill pill knowing they have these tools if things go south.
      A clearly defined certain number of strikes, test criteria, and expected consequences would be nice. If things work well then every one is happy. If for some reason there’s a homeless zombie apocalypse on the page center, parents can rest easy knowing they have the tools to force action. Today the County has messaged that the local neighborhood has no voice, no input, and no tools for oversight. Unfortunately, it sounds like maybe a petition is the best option to give the neighborhood a voice? Either way, this project got off on the wrong foot with it’s new neighbors.

    • The 2015 AHAR reports that more than half of adults living in permanent supportive housing (an intervention that provides affordable housing to chronically homeless people) had a mental health disorder or a co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder.
      Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders.

  3. When I first heard about this plan I had a lot of questions. Once I learned more about it I am in support this much needed project. I don’t think anyone who spoke out against it really listened to the presentation or bothered to hear what was being said. The fact is there are encampments all over this area a large one exists right behind the Creekside Restaurant. There are smaller ones scattered throughout the Puente, Hope Ranch Annex and South Hollister neighborhoods. They are next to the bike path, in the creek beds and even behind backyard fences. Where do you think these people are going to the bathroom? On cold nights they have campfires on warm nights they sometimes cook with campfire. Trash is abundant in and out of public view. These encampments are environmentally damaging as well as a threat to public safety and health .
    Neighbors said they were concerned about the safety of children, especially little girls waking or riding their bikes. I would be far more concerned with cars on Hollister than a resident of this community coming down the hill and snatching them off the road. I would be more concerned about homeless living along the bike path or in the drainages on More Mess harassing a kid. These people already live here and kids seem to be going about their business.
    California law tied the hands of local government when it comes to cleaning up camps. But the La Posada project will give them the tool they need to clean the encampments up. Why wouldn’t anyone want that?

    • Airports also provide a great utility and service to the community. Doesn’t mean you can put one anywhere you want SB. I think the local community was upset due to the rushed nature, lack of input and willingness to work with the local residents. The community members which have the most at stake didn’t get a voice or say in this. The scale is massive regardless of purpose. The people that tried to make this a black ‘n white discussion seem to be the ones trying to push this through the fastest. The folks and heart behind this shelter sounds great, but the size and impact should require working with the people it will impact. If someone tried to permit a room addition on one of the existing houses on Hollister today, they would have to send notification letters to all the neighbors for input, likely go under review for proper ‘neighborhood fit’, even review of the paint color. 90 new units however, nothing. County is bit of a hypocrite on this one. This is a good idea, just scale it back to fit the existing neighborhood.

  4. This is a good and honest start. Remember the old days when single occupancy hotels were common and many poor and small income individuals lived in rooms they could afford on their limited income. These sort of minimal housing systems were valuable but got converted into high cost tourist destination hotels and drove myriads of poor and minimally competent people into the streets. What is needed to supplement these solutions is, unfortunately but honestly, a well funded system of providing emotional/psychological care to the substantial number of individuals who also live in these conditions without hope or a way out. We, an affluent society, can do this and we, a caring society, should do this.

    • The article says that “Each resident will receive intensive case management, three meals a day, mental and physical healthcare, with 24/7 site security. Alcohol, drugs, and visitors are not permitted.” I believe the goal is to address addiction issues, though it sounds like residents will not be allowed to use drugs or alcohol onsite.

    • Oddly the plan also states that residents will receive much of this care at the county facilities across the freeway from where these units are being built.
      Others have posted articles reviewing the facilities this org has already built in Silicon valley now that they are established with some time under their belts. They fall short of the promises they claim in their marketing pitches. Qualified staff is hard to find, etc.. Fact is we don’t have the staffing and resources for these extra services, or next steps to follow this facility. For better or worse w/o a huge investment in mental health facilities, drug rehab, transportation, and affordable housing these will just be long term ‘free’ housing facilities like their predecessors.

  5. I guess I am one of the few, not being a cheerleader, for this.
    Yes, I want the homeless, safe, monitored.
    Have problems with how quickly, this was presented.
    Why this area ?
    The construction, water use, traffic, is a problem to begin with. Turnpike area…Cox, Electric, Water, constantly giving notice for shut offs, just for the new restaurants.
    Add 6 months to build…
    Saw the entire meeting.
    It was decided, before anyone commented.
    I guess, in closed session, after ?
    They voted this through…with a nice pay raise for themselves.

    • Agree. Essentially these shelters are just really expensive temporary bandaids. The land value/opportunity cost of this project alone to the county/tax payer is what? $50mil? Our tax dollars would be justified invested in mental health, drug rehab, basic health care, etc. Especially when we’re spending it anyways for these ‘temporary’ solutions.

    • Agree the scale is huge for the area, any development of this scale will have a measurable and obvious impact. The local community was given little ability to provide input to comment on the impact, or work with with the county towards the best fit, location, and size. I imagine a 90 unit luxury condo complex would have allowed similar scrutiny from the neighboring residents, but w/o the NIMBY shaming.
      Obviously folks who do not allow ‘reasonable’ criticism and concerns are NIMBYs themselves, just doing what they can to keep this out of their own backyards.
      This is a problem and solution all of our local communities need to share in. Time to spread these shelters to all the communities, but at a reasonable scales so not to adversely impact any given area. Downtown has taken some of this on already but the DT location is roughly 1/3 the size of what is going in on Hollister. At a smaller scale I’m sure the local resident would be less concerned, and much less opposition.
      Outside of the massive scale of the project and unknown community impact from that scale, providing short term shelter for those who need + want it is a good thing. Dignity Moves has a good but relatively short track record. Portlands projects looked very promising in the early years, but less so now.
      Temporary shelter is only a % of the solution, and maybe the easiest aspect to solve for. Hopefully the county also invests even greater amounts into mental health, drug rehabilitation, and robust transportation services to/from job and affordable living areas within the county.

    • “Time to spread these shelters to all the communities” – yes, now is the Hope Ranch/Noleta area’s turn. Also, not all communities in the SB/Goleta area have large numbers of homeless populations. These facilities only make sense in those types of areas.
      I agree though, housing is only part of the solution. This country in general needs to take better care of its mentally ill and addicts. Yeah, go ahead and call me a socialist (I see nothing wrong with democratic socialism), but countries in Europe don’t have this problem. I’ve traveled there extensively and have yet to see anything that rivals the homeless crisis we have here. Maybe the stubborn and fanatic anti-“socialism” attitude needs to give way to reason and compassion for once.

    • South Patterson seems to be the homeless hotspot for ‘noleta’. Putting these facilities in more commercial zones, near the corporate tracts, would also have less of an impact on residential neighbors and remove much of the ‘nimby’ aspect. I’d welcome these type of developments near my place of work. This is essentially a large new hotel. With some review and community input I have no doubt better fit locations exist that everyone can get behind.

  6. I am concerned that giving anything besides food and a blanket to the homeless will be a waste of time. Should we help the mentally ill, yes. The drug addicts and laxidazical, I am not so sure. In general, the homeless destroy everything they come into contact with. They exhibit little to no respect for the community at large. Would not our money and dontations be better spent helping low income families. You know, the staple of our society. The ones that do the jobs most of believe we are too good for. Those people are contributing to our society and appectiate the what help, if any they receive. Maybe these tiny homes should be for transitioning single parents, people with jobs, people who are actually trying that the received help will benefit and in return provide benefit to our community…. unless its all about the NIMBY well then….cheers and TGIF!

    • I think what you’ve described here is actually very similar to ‘Transition house’. They do amazing work, and actually do solve + help. For some percentage, shelter will go a long way to helping. For a larger percentage shelter wont help the root of the problem. In the case of drug use shelter can actually sometimes be an enabler. Rock bottom is rough, but it’s often the thing that helps the most (been there). For mental illness shelter can help a lot, but isn’t helping the root cause. Should have never defunded the mental health services in the 80s I guess.

    • Republiturds say more should be done about the homeless in our fine blue state. ANY time there is any resource pointed in that direction the “CONservative” loses their poo – yet they can not make one suggestion on ways to curb homelessness. Same old crappola – “this sucks, I’m a victim”. Trump really knew how to lead the sheep – it didn’t take a genius.

    • Socal Local, one point of this project is to get the homeless off the streets and out of the bushes, precisely because our society doesn’t want them there. If we just give them food and blankets, it won’t achieve that aim. And some people CAN be helped up and out of homelessness. I hope they keep records so we can assess how successful this project is. I think they said the downtown one has had success, but we must watch over time.

    • Transition house is ‘amazing’, but it is also selective choosing families, and low income people looking to get back on their feet. The difference is 4500 Hollister will be non-discriminatory. According to the first paragraph describing the project, it seeks to address the chronic ‘hardest’ cases. This includes mentally ill, drug addicts, etc.. There currently is no ‘next step’ for these cases. They will be permanent residents of this facility, which in turn reduces the availability for other low income and temporarily homeless cases. These people need a home, this project could do some good, but the location is not the correct choice for the long haul.

    • Unlike SB county, Santa Clara representatives at least seemed to listen to the local resident concerns, and maybe attempted to compromise:
      “””In response to public input, the project has changed substantially from its inception. Changes include a reduction from four to three stories and, with it, a population decrease from 124 units to 30 units and a ‘stipulation that it would only house families’.

  7. I am fine with this plan but only if ALL the encampments along the 101 in Goleta/SB are totally cleared out. Caltrans is doing a good job but I still see all the ‘left overs’ on the ground lining the freeway. Surely giving the homeless a few days notice to pick up their belongings should suffice. Why the stuff is left out there for weeks is overkill. Just come in with a dumpster and take it all away. And once all this is cleared out, never allow another encampment in or along our public spaces. No excuses now to allow this with these new projects coming online.

  8. Just curious. If 4500 Hollister Avenue was raw land, and the County Board of Supervisors voted yesterday to build on that site a juvenile delinquent detention facility and a continuation high school for minors, some who had mental health and substance abuse problems, how many opponents would come out of the woodwork to protest that development? Guess what, folks? Those juvenile facilities WERE built at this same Hollister Avenue location. The County Probation Department successfully served and detained thousands of delinquents there for decades. I seemed to have missed the citizen outrage by having that clientele served at these facilities historically.

    • Think about this: an active juvenile offender and continuation high school facility exists at 4500 Hollister Avenue for years. Nobody complains. Not even the Hope Ranch Homeowners Association. Why should they? We as a community need to treat our delinquent youth. Now, a facility is planned to house homeless adults on the same campus. I’m asking you, if you trusted the Probation Department to successfully run the juvenile delinquent facilities (which they did), why can’t you trust Dignity Health to run a successful homeless facility? Or are people really that prejudiced? Like Babycakes, do you believe juvenile offenders = Apples, and homeless people = Onions? How does that make sense? For this location, all I’m saying is I’m amazed we’re having this conversation at all……

    • This will impact the communities surrounding Vieja Valley Elementary School, and San Marcos high school the most.
      I can guarantee you a public library introduces a larger potential for nuisances than the Juvenile facilities every did. Have you ever seen anyone come in or out of that facility? Very rare. The cemetery has more foot and vehicle traffic.
      Go spend 5 minutes in front of the shelter on Milpas and Cacique str, and then compare to 4500 Hollister. Not even the same ballpark.

    • STRAY: I’ve lived across the street from this YOUTH facility off and on for about 20 of the last 40 years. You couldn’t ask for a better neighbor. Rarely any foot or vehicle traffic going in or out of the Juvenile services building. It’s like living next to the principals office. Troubled kids don’t loiter anywhere near it.
      You seem to be saying that because you associate the prior facility or service as undesirable, the residents should quietly accept and exchange the previous for a new perceivably undesirable option? Really?

    • Likely the majority of SB has had no idea where the Juvenile Facilities building is located. Most people have driven by it many times and still have no idea. On the other hand everyone knows there’s a homeless shelter off south Milpas, and see the obvious impact of the Rose Garden Inn shelter on State & Hope.
      Shelters are not prisons, their tenants are not detained. The same folks some people consider undesirable and want to hide away will still have the opportunity to walk the streets in front their new home, just like you and I would. Instead of the handful currently living behind creekside, they’ll now be up to 160 into the concentrated area. Visitors are not allowed inside this new facility, but so seems likely tenants will need to meet their friends out front. Dignity Moves is transparent in acknowledging this concern. We don’t have a magic solution for it. …if we did don’t you think it would be applied at the existing shelters?

  9. I support approving the La Posada homeless development. I live in the neighborhood. I had initial concerns about the idea of more homeless persons here; but I realized NIMBYism is a suspicious, fearful paradigm. The turning point for me, however, was my trust in Dignity Health and their positive track record. Example: I emailed my 2nd District County Supervisor when homeless took over the bus shelter near the intersection of Upper State Street and Highway 154. I received 3 emails back within 24 hours. Within 3 days, the bus bench was cleared. Within 10 days, Cal Trans had removed the possessions and fenced in the property behind the bus bench. The homeless problem at that location as I perceived it was 110% resolved. With La Posada, I understand Dignity Health will have more needed resources on an unused portion of a Juvenile detention facility. If I read correctly, having this resource will allow authorities the ability to offer more homeless persons temporary housing resources. In turn, more unsightly “camps” can be disassembled and cleaned up. Our homeless population AND our community wins.

    • “temporary housing resources” ? For some small percentage maybe? What’s the typical long term plan? It’s ridiculously hard to find cheap rentals in town, even if you have a job, education, single, good credit, etc.. There’s much more cheap housing options outside SB proper both north and south but then it’s harder to find work. Gas prices also negate living in a cheaper area and working in SB. What’s the solution for the % of folks that are just down on their luck and dont have a drug problem or mental health issue?

    • I currently live down the street from a halfway home. I’m fully supportive of these, and unfortunately have loved ones which still rely on them. The harsh reality is that the chance of drug relapse within the 1st year is about 85%. It’s a terrible harsh disease. When the homes restrict drug use with the consequence of being removed it means the residence usually will find a nearby location outside the home to do the drugs where they wont get caught. The Hollister location only provides youth centers, preschools and residential neighbors for this outlet. Unfortunately, letting the new tenants of this facility do drugs in their own rooms is probably the better option. When you kick them out for breaking the rules, how far from their last home/friends do you think they’ll go?

    • SBMOM – Good question, it doesn’t say anything about showers or bathrooms. The one in SB does have onsite showers, bathrooms and laundry, so I would imagine this facility would as well. As for drug use, it’s not permitted per the article, but I’m sure some will get snuck into rooms. Onsite security will keep visitors away, so any drug use would probably be individual. Tough issue though – do they install cameras to ensure no drug use inside the homes? I’d think that would be an invasion of privacy and over the top. People are going to use drugs, but they can’t be out and about under the influence so the safety concern for the public would be minimal it seems.
      I’m excited to see this progress toward helping those who need and want help!

    • The phrase is “could not care less.” Obviously you do care, as you’re participating in this conversation in order to tell us how little you care. Interesting. There is news coverage of this project from several other sources, such as noozhawk:
      “The La Posada project will have up to 90 modular units for people experiencing homelessness in southern Santa Barbara County and will include supportive services such as case management, transportation, peer support, mental health therapy, substance abuse outreach and counseling, and housing navigation.
      Each room will have a bed, a desk, heating and air conditioning, a window, lights and electrical outlets, and a door that locks. Office space, clinics, laundry units, showers and restrooms, and two dining units are also planned to be included on the La Posada site for residents.”

    • I dont understand the ‘security’ part of this. Does this mean they’re locking residents inside or out? Assuming ‘out’ right?
      So if we move 160 currently unsheltered people into this new complex, where do these people hang out in the day time? Other than the Creekside bar, this isn’t really within walking distance of anything?

    • I currently live down the street from a halfway home. I’m fully supportive of these, and unfortunately have loved ones which still rely on them. The harsh reality is that the chance of drug relapse within the 1st year is about 85%. It’s a terrible harsh disease. When the homes restrict drug use with the consequence of being removed it means the residence usually will find a nearby location outside the home to do the drugs where they wont get caught. The Hollister location only provides youth centers, preschools and residential neighbors for this outlet. Unfortunately, letting the new tenants of this facility do drugs in their own rooms is probably the better option. Just the reality of it.

    • VOICE – yup, another reason why “closing the border” isn’t the solution. But, I digress….
      People are going to sneak in drugs, so what? If they’re stumbling around high or passing out in the common areas, they’re going to get kicked out of the program. If they get high in their room, it’s no different from them getting high in a creek. This is a housing facility, not a locked down rehab center. Why is everyone handwringing over the possibility that they might do drugs in their little homes? Do we start going door to door doing drug raids all over town?
      Sheesh folks, give them a break for once. Stop all the excuses to take the chance away for them to have a safe place to sleep at night.

    • LOVEMYSB – they probably won’t, but that’s just how it is anywhere. At least with security there will be no drug dealing and anyone who gets high in their room will not be allowed to walk around under the influence. Also, realistically, the hardcore addicts probably won’t be living here due to the security and drug/alcohol ban. These will be attractive to the more stable and willing to change homeless population.

    • And how, pray tell, will “no drug dealing” be enforced? How many will OD in their rooms? (As has happened on more than one occasion in the northern california “villages” of this type? How will sex offenders and serious violent felons be screened out? The whole point of these glorified campgrounds is “low battier”- eg “anything goes”. But hey, its far from Montecito, Summerland or Santa Ynez and so really who cares?

    • Why choose to concentrate this problem in this part of town, near schools, youth centers, residential homes, etc? The existing facility should probably instead be converted into a Boys n Girls Club, or an extension of the Page youth center next door. That is also desperately needed by our community. It has the sports courts, and is setup to handle youth already.
      A youth center would be a strange fit by the industrial/commercial portions of town, or in the 200 acres of county land across the freeway …but a homeless shelter might fit in well in those locations.

    • LoveMySB: What the new homeless village will do is to concentrate the concerns about drug use, alcohol abuse, violence, etc. in one place. A bit like grouping the bars on the 400/500 block of State Street (of course there are other bars not in that area, but a large number are concentrated in that area). San Franciso used to fine with concentrating their problems “south of Market” in the Tenderloin, but now the problems are spread over nearly the entire city. Best to concentrate the potential problems, in my opinion.

    • As I understand it, that what Portland ran into. Things look great while the facilities and services first filled up, but eventually the homeless population back-filled and back to square one but now with the new expenses + infrastructure to maintain.
      Since no one has a better answer or solution, maybe the correct thing to do for SB is to define a definition of success/failure, monitor community metrics, and provide a clear exit strategy. If these shelters work, then awesome. If they don’t how do we move on from them to try something else?

    • SZQ – have you seen the boxes that these things are? Probably not a lot of air flow without an AC. Sorry your friends moved into places with no air, but why should the homeless have to live in hotboxes just because your friends made that choice? Tell them to pull up their bootstraps!

  10. There’s some talk about putting in a multi-story “sister” housing development for the homeless in Goleta. The location is supposed to be on Fairview where the empty lot next to the Goleta Library. There used to be a “mini farm” located there for many years, which had a retail veggie stand on the corner….Fairview Gardens (or something like that?). For some reason I thought that location was supposed to be kept rural/farmland in perpetuity. Seems like a good location, but who knows if it will ever happen.
    I know the City of Goleta is constructing homeless housing at the old Super 8 (Fairview/Hollister). Good that Goleta is staying of the curve and providing much-needed housing/etc. for those in need.

  11. First of all, I think these types of ideas are a good thing. Second, there is a lot of open space there. Third there is a substantial group of homeless in the area.
    All encampments are not the same.
    The encampment behind Goleta Cemetery is not the same as the one behind Creekside. My best guess is that this will not lower the homeless count in the area over a two year period. Why? Because it is a good place to camp out, the people that want out of the life will leave into the new homes, but the people who want no rules will backfill into the encampments, quickly replacing the ones that do want help. The other big story for journalists would be of the people who will leave this new housing and go back to the encampments. It is crucial to know why they leave and why they stay and move on. I do suspect that some will be unable, unwilling to follow rules, others will simply find they like living outdoors better. The key to solving most of the homeless in crisis is not in the success stories, it is in the failures.
    Personally, I think homelessness is a permanent choice for some who want to live with no rules., and some of them will rather die in the dirt with a needle in their arm than bend to societal rules. No amount of cash or square footage or amenities will fix them. Not that we stop trying, but some homeless will continue to choose die on their own terms and all we can do is offer alternatives

Solstice Workshop Fun and Help Needed

Smoke Investigation on Bath Street