Marinscope
The “fit” hit the “shan,” so to speak, in regards to citizen pushback on a Marin County plan to house 50 chronically homeless people in Larkspur.
The County has applied for $15 million from the state homeless program called Project Homekey to purchase for $23 million a building for homeless housing.
A petition with about 2,000 signatures opposes the plan because the proposed housing (1521 Eliseo Drive) is on a designated “Safe Route” for children going to school.
The petition states: “The proposed site is directly on a Kentfield School District designated ‘Safe Route,’ near Hal Brown park (where children of all ages gather), and near MULTIPLE schools: Bacich Elementary School, Marin Catholic High School, Hall Middle School, Kent Middle School, and other Preschools.”
And the online petition isn’t the only opposition. The Kentfield School District said the location “presents an unacceptable safety risk to our children and liability to the district.”
In particular, the district school trustees objected to the fact that the mission of the facility is to cater to the most needy of the chronically homeless in Marin, which means the residents that would be placed on the “Safe Route” would consist of people who are sex offenders, substance abusers and people who are categorized as “seriously” mentally ill.
The county at a public hearing on the matter last week tried to mitigate concern by explaining that the facility would not house people on the “lifetime sex offender” list and the facility would have staff on site 24-7.
Residents concerned about the facility being misplaced, jumped on the county as being “misleading” about sex offenders living on a “Safe Route.” Just because a person on the “lifetime sex offender” registry is prohibited from living at the Larkspur facility doesn’t mean that other sex offenders will not be housed there.
The issue of sobriety as a condition of living at the facility also came up as a concern. The County says this facility concept is designed to meet people’s housing needs. Sobriety is not a precondition for living at the facility.
Not one presenter addressed the issues of policy concerning prior arrest records or mental health status of people under consideration for residency in this proposed facility. Unacceptable!
honestly prior arrest and mental health are the least of the concerns. Everyone at some point in their life needs a break or a hand up. However sex offenders and wet housing doesn’t belong in the middle of a neighborhood nor does the cost of the location need to carry that type of price tag, just for the real-estate. Marin County can find less expensive locations as well as locations more suitable for wet housing and sex offenders. Plus I don’t think the 14th amendment allows for enriching religious institutions by giving or leasing them the land for below market value.
This might just be the most mindless idea anyone has ever had. These folks need to be in locations where there is treatment, security, and control. Kentfield has none of this. We have unused barracks at the old Alameda Naval base that could be repurposed for treatment centers. And then there is the Sonoma Developmental Center – tailor made to house, care for, and treat these individuals. If we wanted to solve this issue – we could…
Please add my name to the opposition petition. This site is a terrible choice for homeless and mentally challenged folks. Build middle class condos, sell them for a fortune, and use the profit to house homeless near proper services and Police.
The County has other places that would be better suited for housing the homeless and still allow Sex Offenders as well as Wet Housing. Locations inside an industrial park, between Novato and Petaluma or even areas off the beaten trail that can utilize train and bus service.
Statistically, the Department of Justice finds sex offenders have very low recidivism rates meaning they “aren’t that likely” to commit a sex crime again. All it takes is just 1 act against a child, how would you like your child or wife or son to be that one the statistic ?
Also if I’m not mistaken the 14th Amendment clause prohibits all levels of government from either advancing or inhibiting religion. By giving the land to Episcopal Community Services wont they be advancing the church’s strength by enriching the church.