Shared with HCAOG, RCAA, City of Eureka Planning.
After glancing through the methodology of your Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), I am now more confused, which is okay.
In general, I believe that the RHNA allocates needed housing towards concentrated areas, and in many ways is to restrictive in where the majority of allocations are located. I feel that the allocation plan is too restrictive addressing housing needs mainly for the larger populated areas here on the coast. This to me only places a stronger burden on already over-extended services the cities of Arcata, Eureka, Fortuna, and Rio Dell. Yes, there are cities incorporated and unincorporated addressed in the RHNA, but it just seems the only community being addressed in addition to those I noted is McKinleyville.
I also believe that the program does not address the true needs of the County for the very, very low income to have an opportunity to find permanent housing. Housing should be targeting this group in all communities. Individuals should not be forced to move from a very rural community to a community here on the coast, such as Eureka or Arcata. The fact that the County's Housing Authority has a waiting list demonstrates the need for additional housing for the group mentioned.
In addressing the very, very low income, I am also pointing out the needs of the homeless. First, one must admit that there are homeless that will never want to change their situation, this is a given. But we do have a large homeless contingency living in motels that need assistance in changing their situation, not only for the adults, but for the children that are involved and connected to the family.
I believe the County needs to do more outreach to provide for the homeless and their transition into permanent housing. There are areas in Willow Creek, Blue Lake, Redway and Orick that could be developed for very, very low income housing but do not seem to be considered (Of course, I realize that these areas are limited and the development can not only be provided for the very, very low income; development would have to be a mixture of income levels.).
Development of housing in some areas outside of the coast seems more difficult than here on the coast and this should not be an issue. Using Willow Creek as an example, there are a couple individuals in the area who would have liked to add 20 housing units, but because of the restrictions, they dropped the plans. But, I wonder if this same situation was to considered here in McKinleyville or Ridgewood, if the same issues would be brought up? Of course, we shall never know because the actual issues are not known except for the frustration shared to do business with County Planning and so forth.
Returning to the homeless issue, I feel it is wrong that to receive assistance is all located here in the larger cities, but such is life. There are opportunities to assist homeless in the outer communities, yet the resources are very restrictive or limited.
The City of Eureka, Humboldt County and Redwood Community Action Agency worked towards the Multiple Assistance Center (MAC) to serve the so-called needy and homeless and because of funding issues, it has been limited; and, where it is located, even more limited to who is served.
Still, here in the larger cities are where the resources are located and it needs to be utilized much better in serving the County overall. In leaning this way, I believe the Downtowner Motel location would be an location for a "Transitional Housing Program" for the low-income and homeless.
This Transitional Housing Program would address needs such as saving for permanent housing by taking a portion of their limited income and placing it into a kitty for saving up to gain enough to get the first and last month's rent and the deposit usually required. Why here under this program, job training and education will be provided - this will be provided in the form of counseling and if funding is provided on-site.
Use of a Transitional Housing Program and the Downtowner Motel modified would lessen the number of families and individuals living in motels paying nearly 95% of their monthly income. It would promote pride and respect into individuals that are looking to improve their lives - Strict rules for this facility would need to be in place regarding drugs and alcohol, but this is natural for those truly wishing to change.
Just a few thoughts I had.
Showing posts with label RCAA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RCAA. Show all posts
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Eureka General Plan Input - Housing Element
I originally submitted this to the City of Eureka Planning Department on July 25, 2009. I hope others submitted there thoughts!
City of Eureka
General Plan
Housing Element Comments
My comments are based on the May, 2004 Housing Element for the City of Eureka General Plan prepared by Joel Canzoneri, Senior Planner, and, in truth just personal thoughts as an individual confined to a wheelchair for nearly 35 years
Population Characteristics:
I believe that the statistics are interesting and basically a guess. Table II-2 demonstrates “Household Projections – Needs By Income Group”. Even though these are projected numbers, I believe statistics should be shown that represents a percentage of individuals with disabilities and elderly within the City of Eureka that fall into the various income groups listed.
I often wonder if the number of individuals with disabilities and elderly are overlooked because they are living in a Care Home or included in the family as a member because of unavailable housing to provide for independent living without family assistance. I have developed this belief from the various contacts I have come across within the City, false or true, it is a thought and may demonstrate a need for housing that meets the true need of the elderly and individuals with disabilities population.
I believe that separating the individuals with disabilities and elderly out from the general population will promote a stronger effort towards meeting heir needs for independent living. I assume that the numbers provided presently include this.
Employment Characteristics:
Though education, health, and social services are mentioned as the largest sectors of employment, I believe that the health and social services industry is going to grow two-fold within the next tens years. Services that allow individuals to live within the community and be involved in social activities will promote a healthier and stronger community. Future housing development might consider how a new development can address the health of the individual, as well as the community it is being built in that promotes self-employment and various services near the vicinity of new housing concerns.
Motels as Residences:
This is an issue that has a few good and bad points to it in my view:
1. A large majority of the motels listed allowing long-term occupancy do not collect the “Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)”, which in turn means less income for the City. The owners of the various motels also probably depend on the long-term occupancy as a firm and continuous income source not possible to receive from visitors to our area looking for more up-to-date accommodations. (I stayed at a few hotels in my time and I was always charged weekly and the TOT – speaking with a few individuals staying in local motels they have been charged the TOT even paying monthly. I wonder of this is something that needs further investigation.)
2. In truth, the motels are providing a service to the City. In most cases, if not allowing the long-term occupancy there would more than likely be more living on the streets than currently visible today. A large number of these individuals are on welfare or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) with very limited incomes.
3. Another view regarding the motels accepting long-term occupancy is the fact they charge anywhere from $600 to $800 per month (A SSI recipient receives $850 per month and are no eligible for Food Stamps.) depending on the room and number of individuals in your family/group. The majority of the rooms do not provide cooking facilities and if they do, they are usually primitive an unsafe. Considering this many individuals still must eat out and on limited incomes appropriate meals are hard to come by.
4. If housing was built to provide for a majority of those living in motels the economic base of the City would be greater because less would go to shelter and more would go towards personal health, education and job training, and possible employment having a permanent residence.
Special Needs:
I find it difficult to understand who plans and approves housing needs for the elderly and individuals with disabilities (Are individuals represented on the Eureka Housing Advisory Board?). Through my personal experience I have visited many sites that are supposedly accessible to the people with disabilities. I have come across entrances with doors that swing out on slopes that if you are using a wheelchair carrying anything entering the building is damn near in possible (Many businesses in Old Town are inaccessible due to slopes and widths of doors and in some cases, just no ramps.).
I have seen housing built and modified for individuals using wheelchair, but rented to a disabled person that had no use of the modifications. Along with these apartments or houses there are also parking spaces along the curb that if you are driving a sedan are not usable (ADA has an example of a better designated parking site along curbs that allows for access from a low vehicle.). I can only imagine what the difficulties of an elderly individual has getting out of a low vehicle at a curb using a walker or chair.
Disabled Persons (change this to: “People with Disabilities”):
I have a concern regarding “group homes” and feel it is almost as if individuals with disabilities are encouraged to be in a “group home” and not living independent as possible. I know that there is a big concern regarding “group homes” and isolating individuals with disabilities from complete participation within various activities of our society. In regards to group homes, I recommend contacting Bobbie McKay at the Redwood Coast Regional Center, 525 Second Street, Suite 300, Eureka. (707) 445-0893, ext. 347. Email: Bmckay@Redwoodcoastrc.org
It is mentioned on page 42 of the old plan, the third paragraph, that “The City has adopted Title 24 Access Regulations that contain universal design elements, and this is implemented in the review of all building permits where required.” I believe this should be added to business permits as well, promoting further access or plans to provide access in the near future to all throughout our society (I know many businesses that claim access is not needed because of the “grandfather myth”.).
In regards to building permits, do you have individuals familiar with individuals with disabilities review them prior to approval? I know that I had an opportunity when I was in Aspen, Colorado and Willow Creek, California to do this and changed a few plans to make the outcome serve the community better and in some cases saved the builder money.
Also on page 42 at the bottom, last paragraph that “Currently, disabled persons in Eureka are served by the Humboldt Access Project…..” This is now “Tri-County Independent Living Center, 2822 Harris Street, Eureka. Chris Jones is the Director of this agency and would be a good contact for concerns surrounding individuals with disabilities, (707) 445-8404.”
I mention the Tri-County Independent Living Center, because at this time they do offer assistance as written, but it is limited. Funds are received from the Redevelopment Department to provide ramps for individuals needing them within City limits. This has been a very good program and hope it is continued serving individuals with limited access in and out of their homes.
I understand that there is a “Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)” available for rehabilitate various types of homes at low interest or no cost (I may have a misunderstanding here.). From my experience the most difficult part in finding housing is access to the bathroom and cooking facilities. If funds could be made available through grants and such to remodel bathrooms and kitchens to provide reasonable accommodations the need for overall accessible housing may be reduced. I would make these funds available to individuals owning their homes and owners of rentals (I know there are many individuals that can use this can of assistance, especially of they were recently injured and returned home from a hospital not having the ability to afford modifying their place of residence.).
Note: Throughout the document the phrase “disabled persons” is used. I would recommend using the following terms in its place: “People with Disabilities” or “Individuals with Disabilities”. I prefer “individuals with disabilities” while most may prefer the other, no big deal to me (LOL).
I noticed that the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) has much to do with “transitional housing”, “homeless shelters”, and etc. From personal experience from a visit to their office on 9th and G Streets the access to the Housing Assistance Office was very, very limited, though I could sit outside and beat on the stairs and talk to some one when they came outside. Like it or not, individuals with disabilities need assistance in finding housing and even getting treatment for alcohol/drug issues they may have. RCAA needs to provide friendly access to their facilities they sponsor; this should be a requirement by the City for receiving funds.
I also believe that RCAA (Any organization, actually) and the City should seriously consider developing a Homeless/Transitional Center” using the old “”Downtowner Motel” at 8th and F Streets. It would be located near the bus line, provide access to many veterans needing assistance in moving forward (After the Iraq/Afghan Wars Veterans with disabilities are going to increase. Why not prepare for it now?).
City of Eureka
General Plan
Housing Element Comments
My comments are based on the May, 2004 Housing Element for the City of Eureka General Plan prepared by Joel Canzoneri, Senior Planner, and, in truth just personal thoughts as an individual confined to a wheelchair for nearly 35 years
Population Characteristics:
I believe that the statistics are interesting and basically a guess. Table II-2 demonstrates “Household Projections – Needs By Income Group”. Even though these are projected numbers, I believe statistics should be shown that represents a percentage of individuals with disabilities and elderly within the City of Eureka that fall into the various income groups listed.
I often wonder if the number of individuals with disabilities and elderly are overlooked because they are living in a Care Home or included in the family as a member because of unavailable housing to provide for independent living without family assistance. I have developed this belief from the various contacts I have come across within the City, false or true, it is a thought and may demonstrate a need for housing that meets the true need of the elderly and individuals with disabilities population.
I believe that separating the individuals with disabilities and elderly out from the general population will promote a stronger effort towards meeting heir needs for independent living. I assume that the numbers provided presently include this.
Employment Characteristics:
Though education, health, and social services are mentioned as the largest sectors of employment, I believe that the health and social services industry is going to grow two-fold within the next tens years. Services that allow individuals to live within the community and be involved in social activities will promote a healthier and stronger community. Future housing development might consider how a new development can address the health of the individual, as well as the community it is being built in that promotes self-employment and various services near the vicinity of new housing concerns.
Motels as Residences:
This is an issue that has a few good and bad points to it in my view:
1. A large majority of the motels listed allowing long-term occupancy do not collect the “Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)”, which in turn means less income for the City. The owners of the various motels also probably depend on the long-term occupancy as a firm and continuous income source not possible to receive from visitors to our area looking for more up-to-date accommodations. (I stayed at a few hotels in my time and I was always charged weekly and the TOT – speaking with a few individuals staying in local motels they have been charged the TOT even paying monthly. I wonder of this is something that needs further investigation.)
2. In truth, the motels are providing a service to the City. In most cases, if not allowing the long-term occupancy there would more than likely be more living on the streets than currently visible today. A large number of these individuals are on welfare or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) with very limited incomes.
3. Another view regarding the motels accepting long-term occupancy is the fact they charge anywhere from $600 to $800 per month (A SSI recipient receives $850 per month and are no eligible for Food Stamps.) depending on the room and number of individuals in your family/group. The majority of the rooms do not provide cooking facilities and if they do, they are usually primitive an unsafe. Considering this many individuals still must eat out and on limited incomes appropriate meals are hard to come by.
4. If housing was built to provide for a majority of those living in motels the economic base of the City would be greater because less would go to shelter and more would go towards personal health, education and job training, and possible employment having a permanent residence.
Special Needs:
I find it difficult to understand who plans and approves housing needs for the elderly and individuals with disabilities (Are individuals represented on the Eureka Housing Advisory Board?). Through my personal experience I have visited many sites that are supposedly accessible to the people with disabilities. I have come across entrances with doors that swing out on slopes that if you are using a wheelchair carrying anything entering the building is damn near in possible (Many businesses in Old Town are inaccessible due to slopes and widths of doors and in some cases, just no ramps.).
I have seen housing built and modified for individuals using wheelchair, but rented to a disabled person that had no use of the modifications. Along with these apartments or houses there are also parking spaces along the curb that if you are driving a sedan are not usable (ADA has an example of a better designated parking site along curbs that allows for access from a low vehicle.). I can only imagine what the difficulties of an elderly individual has getting out of a low vehicle at a curb using a walker or chair.
Disabled Persons (change this to: “People with Disabilities”):
I have a concern regarding “group homes” and feel it is almost as if individuals with disabilities are encouraged to be in a “group home” and not living independent as possible. I know that there is a big concern regarding “group homes” and isolating individuals with disabilities from complete participation within various activities of our society. In regards to group homes, I recommend contacting Bobbie McKay at the Redwood Coast Regional Center, 525 Second Street, Suite 300, Eureka. (707) 445-0893, ext. 347. Email: Bmckay@Redwoodcoastrc.org
It is mentioned on page 42 of the old plan, the third paragraph, that “The City has adopted Title 24 Access Regulations that contain universal design elements, and this is implemented in the review of all building permits where required.” I believe this should be added to business permits as well, promoting further access or plans to provide access in the near future to all throughout our society (I know many businesses that claim access is not needed because of the “grandfather myth”.).
In regards to building permits, do you have individuals familiar with individuals with disabilities review them prior to approval? I know that I had an opportunity when I was in Aspen, Colorado and Willow Creek, California to do this and changed a few plans to make the outcome serve the community better and in some cases saved the builder money.
Also on page 42 at the bottom, last paragraph that “Currently, disabled persons in Eureka are served by the Humboldt Access Project…..” This is now “Tri-County Independent Living Center, 2822 Harris Street, Eureka. Chris Jones is the Director of this agency and would be a good contact for concerns surrounding individuals with disabilities, (707) 445-8404.”
I mention the Tri-County Independent Living Center, because at this time they do offer assistance as written, but it is limited. Funds are received from the Redevelopment Department to provide ramps for individuals needing them within City limits. This has been a very good program and hope it is continued serving individuals with limited access in and out of their homes.
I understand that there is a “Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)” available for rehabilitate various types of homes at low interest or no cost (I may have a misunderstanding here.). From my experience the most difficult part in finding housing is access to the bathroom and cooking facilities. If funds could be made available through grants and such to remodel bathrooms and kitchens to provide reasonable accommodations the need for overall accessible housing may be reduced. I would make these funds available to individuals owning their homes and owners of rentals (I know there are many individuals that can use this can of assistance, especially of they were recently injured and returned home from a hospital not having the ability to afford modifying their place of residence.).
Note: Throughout the document the phrase “disabled persons” is used. I would recommend using the following terms in its place: “People with Disabilities” or “Individuals with Disabilities”. I prefer “individuals with disabilities” while most may prefer the other, no big deal to me (LOL).
I noticed that the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) has much to do with “transitional housing”, “homeless shelters”, and etc. From personal experience from a visit to their office on 9th and G Streets the access to the Housing Assistance Office was very, very limited, though I could sit outside and beat on the stairs and talk to some one when they came outside. Like it or not, individuals with disabilities need assistance in finding housing and even getting treatment for alcohol/drug issues they may have. RCAA needs to provide friendly access to their facilities they sponsor; this should be a requirement by the City for receiving funds.
I also believe that RCAA (Any organization, actually) and the City should seriously consider developing a Homeless/Transitional Center” using the old “”Downtowner Motel” at 8th and F Streets. It would be located near the bus line, provide access to many veterans needing assistance in moving forward (After the Iraq/Afghan Wars Veterans with disabilities are going to increase. Why not prepare for it now?).
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Multiple Assistance Center Woes
http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_7337690
RE-reading the article above, Ice pointed out the problem: "We have three organizations with different thoughts that do not want to lose their anonomity.
This especially applies to the Rescue Mission Ice operates. "When this project first started, there were differences between these organizations regarding funding and who should do what. It seems now, when one is about to go down, they give the impression of support, but yet are concerned about individual powers.
If they think about it, the 16 individuals will be going where for assistance? St. Vincent DePaul or Eureka Mission, or both. This is going to increase their problems. Who will pick up the slack in their budgets?
The Mac's future hinges on the RCAA being able to reorganize its budget. Here is another part of the problem, and this is going to be very difficult for them to overcome. For they can not only look at financial responsibility for the MAC as a single entity.
They must be able to look at the overall structure of RCAA. This may mean, Department heads wearing more than one hat of responsibility, as well as better time management towards the operation of new duties, as well as duties currently in possession of that need to be turned over to others.
No matter, RCAA and the MAC has to look outside of the box, as well as look within their own box to create new ways of doing things - Some of the new ways of business may be just doing what worked in the past and are currently working for others outside of the area.
Also, no matter how faith driven they are, in the present world money and resources are tight individually. Not working in following strong traditional structures will demonstrate more towards survival than standing on old ways of doing things (I am not saying forget your faith, but create an avenue for sharing your faith, as well as accomplishing common goals.).
As one, these organizations will not be self-supported; but as a combined effort, I believe they could stand stronger for future work needed.
RE-reading the article above, Ice pointed out the problem: "We have three organizations with different thoughts that do not want to lose their anonomity.
This especially applies to the Rescue Mission Ice operates. "When this project first started, there were differences between these organizations regarding funding and who should do what. It seems now, when one is about to go down, they give the impression of support, but yet are concerned about individual powers.
If they think about it, the 16 individuals will be going where for assistance? St. Vincent DePaul or Eureka Mission, or both. This is going to increase their problems. Who will pick up the slack in their budgets?
The Mac's future hinges on the RCAA being able to reorganize its budget. Here is another part of the problem, and this is going to be very difficult for them to overcome. For they can not only look at financial responsibility for the MAC as a single entity.
They must be able to look at the overall structure of RCAA. This may mean, Department heads wearing more than one hat of responsibility, as well as better time management towards the operation of new duties, as well as duties currently in possession of that need to be turned over to others.
No matter, RCAA and the MAC has to look outside of the box, as well as look within their own box to create new ways of doing things - Some of the new ways of business may be just doing what worked in the past and are currently working for others outside of the area.
Also, no matter how faith driven they are, in the present world money and resources are tight individually. Not working in following strong traditional structures will demonstrate more towards survival than standing on old ways of doing things (I am not saying forget your faith, but create an avenue for sharing your faith, as well as accomplishing common goals.).
As one, these organizations will not be self-supported; but as a combined effort, I believe they could stand stronger for future work needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
