Meeting Time: September 28, 2021 at 9:00pm PDT
The online Comment window has expired

Agenda Item

1. Real Property Acquisition for the Potential Purposes of Siting Homeless Services (Two-Thirds Vote Required) [TO BE DELIVERED] File ID: 2021-01117

  • Default_avatar
    Barry Boyd over 2 years ago

    Chris Jones at September 28, 2021 at 5:20pm PDT
    Oppose
    I'll lead off by saying I support strong action to address the homelessness crisis - I am a staunch advocate for the campus model of services. That being said, anyone who votes in favor of this should be ashamed of themselves. This is not how a transparent and honest city government should be run. It is wrong to have a rushed vote, at 9PM, designed to exempt yourselves from the rules that demand a 10 day public notice period so you can spend taxpayer dollars.

    Beyond that, given that the City was notified on 9/14 that there was a lawsuit in progress (page 11 of attachment) regarding the CEQA declaration of no impact to environment, I find it downright suspect that the staff report for this item just so happens to be date stamped on 9/14 (pages 2-4). While it remains to be seen what the outcome of the case will be, it is irresponsible to proceed while this litigation is in progress.

    DITTO!!!!!!!!!!

  • Default_avatar
    Nicola Francis over 2 years ago

    I am vehemently opposed to this proposal, which represents another attempt by our local government to circumvent the democratic process & ensure that the residents and stakeholders most impacted by their proposals will not have a voice in the decisions being made. The way our government has handled this is shameful. Residents of 21st Avenue, where one of the shelters is proposed, were notified on September 22, 2021 via email about the proposal for the first time---for many, they had no idea the site on their street was even being proposed. Instead, our government canvassed more insulated areas of the neighborhood, ignoring those who would be most impacted. Additionally, they unanimously voted the proposed sites in in early August, before notifying residents on 21st Avenue (and possibly other areas) This is just one more unethical way they are trying to make sure no one opposes them or has a voice in this process. I urge a NO vote on this item.

  • Default_avatar
    Rory Tira over 2 years ago

    Handled poorly and rushed for a complex chronic and crisis problem that affects every city resident. There should be total opposition to this action item tonight. We hold our city leadership to better than this.

  • Default_avatar
    Matthew King over 2 years ago

    Not enough notice was given to the public re: this meeting.

  • Default_avatar
    Larry Leidelmeyer over 2 years ago

    The fast tracking of this agenda item without prior and proper notification to the general public is irresponsible and bad government. Not being a “transparent” city government as Mayor Steinberg claims shows alternative motives IMO.

    The city has no formal plan to deal with the transients, parolees, drug users or those that are in fact truly homeless. Money is just being thrown to the fire to fuel it.

    If you build it, you need to have a continuous plan to maintain and provide essential services and care. None of which has ever been discussed openly in the meetings, planning, budgeting or with outside services.

  • Default_avatar
    Jenn Knapp over 2 years ago

    A "special meeting" at 9pm on a Tuesday. Why not wait until your next regular meeting? It's not as if you don't have one almost every week. How can this NOT be seen as a lack of transparency and an attempt to show how this Council couldn't care less about its constituents? What else are you all trying to hide or avoid to ramrod your plans through? This is a shameful display and every councilmember should be embarrassed to be a part of it.

  • Default_avatar
    Ken Ka over 2 years ago

    This is ridiculous and sneaky/shady. 9pm??? So you can slide something in under the public noses? What happened to transparency. We will not stand for any more of this. Enough is enough with this council.

  • Default_avatar
    Michelle Freire over 2 years ago

    I oppose this action because transparency is as critical now as it's ever been. Waiving the period for public review and comment is not acceptable. Our government is one of checks and balances. This 9pm vote is a shifty way of excluding your constituency from having a voice in what happens in their community.

  • Default_avatar
    Kristina Rogers over 2 years ago

    This is not how you do it.

  • Default_avatar
    Bruce Pierini over 2 years ago

    I am adamantly opposed to the City Council waiving the 10-day public notice period for such an action. Also with the lawsuit against the lack of CEQA review (9/14/21) any action moving forward on siting of homeless under the WX freeway may be found invalid by a court.

  • Default_avatar
    Chris Jones over 2 years ago

    I'll lead off by saying I support strong action to address the homelessness crisis - I am a staunch advocate for the campus model of services. That being said, anyone who votes in favor of this should be ashamed of themselves. This is not how a transparent and honest city government should be run. It is wrong to have a rushed vote, at 9PM, designed to exempt yourselves from the rules that demand a 10 day public notice period so you can spend taxpayer dollars.

    Beyond that, given that the City was notified on 9/14 that there was a lawsuit in progress (page 11 of attachment) regarding the CEQA declaration of no impact to environment, I find it downright suspect that the staff report for this item just so happens to be date stamped on 9/14 (pages 2-4). While it remains to be seen what the outcome of the case will be, it is irresponsible to proceed while this litigation is in progress.

    I urge those councilmembers who hold the ideals of integrity and transparency to vote no on this action!

  • Default_avatar
    David Ingram over 2 years ago

    This is a very shady way to do business folks. Please give the public proper notice and bring this Agenda Item back during a regularly scheduled City Council Meeting. CEQA, environmental reviews, removing spending limits and public oversight, ignoring the need for SAFE and HEALTHY locations to house the most vulnerable portion of our population, etc. are not issues that should be subject to shortcuts. These issues have been going on for years. Don't pretend like it's suddenly an emergency that circumvents proper governmental oversights and safeguards.

  • Default_avatar
    D5 Resident over 2 years ago

    NO Environmental Impact Report needed by CEQA sections 5269(c) (actions “necessary to mitigate an emergency”),
    and 15061 (b)(3) (as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the plan might have a significant effect on the environment)? How can it be said that homeless sites don't have an environmental impact on the area? How can it be said that the homeless can be placed into an environment that hasn't been properly reviewed? An emergency meeting without proper public notification, 31.5 million dollars coming in, and no Environmental Impact Report to be done to make certain that the environment is safe for our most vulnerable population. Perhaps this emergency meeting is because of the recent lawsuit against the W/X sites under the freeway being exposed to toxic fumes? Is this City Council trying to avoid preparing safe places for the homeless by avoiding CEQA review?