Front Page  »  

SLO transit forks $1.5 million to CAPSLO homeless center site

April 3, 2014

capsloThe San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority committed $1.5 million Wednesday to the purchase of a Prado Road property that the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo will use to open a homeless services center. [Tribune]

SLORTA and CAPSLO will jointly purchase 40 Prado Road for $2.2 million. In addition to serving as the site for the future homeless services center, the location will become a transit maintenance and dispatch facility.

The vast majority of the money the two agencies will use to purchase the property will come from government funding. State and federal grants obtained by SLORTA by way of the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments will account for the entire $1.5 sum that the transit agency is contributing.

CAPSLO has already secured $250,000 from the San Luis Obispo City Council to use for the purchase, and it is expecting a matching contribution from the county board of supervisors. The remaining funds will come from donations raised by the newly created Homeless Foundation for San Luis Obispo.

The proposed homeless center will consist of 200 beds, a commercial kitchen, laundry facilities, showers, storage space, offices for caseworkers, multipurpose rooms and a children’s classroom.

CAPSLO settled on the site after a proposed location on South Higuera Street prompted community backlash.

The announcement of the purchase agreement comes three weeks after CAPSLO reorganized its homeless services division and demoted its homeless services director Dee Torres.

 


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


43 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Honestly, no public funding transactions should occur until such time as the results of a forensic audit are published.


0

If Dee were still in charge, it would be….”Medallions on the House!”


0

If memory serves me correctly, Debbie Arnold sits on the CAPSLO Board. I would expect that anything involving funding from the Board of Supervisors on any level for anything as it relates to CAPSLO, she too would be required to recuse herself from voting. The same should be true of the City Council; Carlyn Christianson also sits on the CAPSLO Board and should recuse herself from any votes related to funding.

Adam Hill only recused himself a few select times before but now that he made an ass of himself once again, part of the excuse/apology is to recuse himself from voting on CAPSLO matters (I’ll believe that when I see it)

I feel that before any new funding can even be considered, CAPSLO needs to show an effective program model as well as proof that what they have in place NOW is working within their current budget….all I see happening is CAPSLO taking a program that doesn’t work now and adding a building that can support 200 beds, how does this make any sense? There a lot of folks living in the creeks that don’t want to give their SSI money to CAPSLO nor do they want to abide by rules laid out by CAPSLO. These folks consider themselves free of control by anyone, some yes, suffer from addiction and/or have mental issues. That fact won’t change no matter how many beds you have.

Why not look at using the money to provide better services in a department that already exists, Mental Health?


Just an observation………


0

I agree, none of the elected officials on the CAPSLO board should be allowed to vote on any issue regarding funding or support of CAPSLO. That would result in CAPSLO being required to compete for funding on a level playing field with other non-profits, rather than buying the votes of elected officials with lavish trips to Washington, DC and other perks.


However, the ideal isn’t necessarily going to happen. As I understand the ethics requirements for elected officials, there must to be some financial benefit to the elected official to require that they recuse themselves from voting on CAPSLO matters. In the case of Hill, it can be reasonably assumed that since he lives with a CAPSLO manager, there is a financial benefit to him because of that relationship. When they marry, there will be a very definite financial benefit that should require Hill to recuse himself.


Having watched this CAPSLO debacle for this long, my guess is Hill will continue to participate in voting on CAPSLO funding.


0

This decision is SOOOOOOOO wrong! CAPSLO just keeps gouging the gravy train. With ZERO evidence of their ability to manage care of the homeless. I’m ill from observing the continued support of this corrupt organization.


0

Well …have hope, friend !


If you stay ill long enough, you probably won’t be able to work, and perhaps not be able to afford decent housing.

So, YOU TOO, could become homeless.

Then, you won’t be so psychologically grieved by the actions of government agencies.


0

I wish someone would explain the laws of supply and demand to government officials. In economics, supply subsidies encourage producers to produce more of a product as they are able to do so for less. In practice, a supply-side subsidy causes demand for that product to increase.


By increasing or subsidizing the “supply” of homeless beds by 200, the demand will increase as well. The beds will be filled and there will be just as many homeless sleeping creekside as there are currently.


Government does this time and time again. If you build it, they will come.


0

Logic and intelligence is wasted on the liberal left. They are going to help the homeless no matter how ineffective their programs are.


0

Hmmmm… So following the linear conclusions of you two street corner philosophers: by ignoring the situation and doing nothing, the problem will rectify itself. There will be no demand for the homeless, and they will just dissappear.


Of course they will …by conveniently dying.


0

So you must be in favor of the government spending several million dollars to fund a facility that will cost maybe a million or two per year to handle 200 homeless people. And of course the costs will escalate as they do with all government programs and the number of homeless will also escalate due to the government hindering the economy by taking more and more money away from the people who create jobs. If you want a solution what we need is a facility that will handle about one thousand in a bare bones situation that will encourage people to take care of themselves rather than rely on the government to provide a comfortable existence so that they can remain down while numerous government employees become wealthy.


0

I am in favor of basic …very basic, human rights.


Ever hear of the “Rule of Three” ?


Three minutes without oxygen, a human being dies.

*** Three hours without adequate shelter away from the ellements,

a human being dies.***

Three days without water, a human being dies.

Thirty days without food, a human being dies.


As for the rest of your comment, it sounds eerily similar to what Sir Charles Trevelyan said about the Irish peasants during the Potato Famine.


0

Actually, I have a proposed alternative for the homeless situation. Convert abandoned military and national guard bases to communities, however, the homeless must have skin in the game by learning the carpentry skills required, growing their own food, and establishing mercantile facilities.


This of course will never happen as these people would much rather be drunk or high and sleep in Mitchell Park all day.


In order to be “homeless” a person has to alienate themselves from every single person who has ever loved them in their lives. Do you really think these are people just “down on their luck”. Wake up and smell the coffee Rooney!


0

Or better yet, let a few of them stay with you at your house..Didn’t think so.


I eat lunch every day in Mitchell Park. If you would like to see the real story of the homeless rather than the fictitious fairy tale, spend a few hours blocks of time at any park in SLO. You’ll see drug deals, violence, drinking out of paper bags, harassment.


0

Never mind: I see the answer to my question in the second paragraph.


0

And what do we make of the politics it took for a Transit Authority to kick in $1.5 million to a homeless shelter project?


I don’t see the legitimate connection.


0

I still am feeling this is the wrong way to go. We should be working to get people into their own housing not building a warehouse to store them.


0

Good idea ! Where do you suggest that housing should be ?


I would hope that you are munificent enough to recommend the housing units to be located in your own neighborhood.


0

“and it is expecting a matching contribution from the county board of supervisors” so lets see Mr. Hill should abstain from voting because he said he would, Ms. Ray should vote “NO” if she really isn’t locked in with Mr. Hill. Mr. Gibson will vote “YES”, and likely a split from the other two supervisors so there should not be any matching funds from the county, right?


0
1 2 3