San Luis Obispo’s Railroad Square is poised to shutter its safe parking site for the homeless, but its potential future iteration has already sparked local ire.
SLO resident Anthony Bozzano lives half a mile from the city’s new proposed safe parking site in a primarily residential neighborhood on Palm Street—part of a series of rotating locations under the new program. The city favored the Palm Street strip between the SLO Vets Hall and Grand Avenue for its width and low traffic flow, but Bozzano is worried about its proximity to his home.
“I walk my child to day care every day, and that’s right where I walk through,” he said. “I felt like it’s pretty irresponsible of the city to force the people who live in that neighborhood to deal with the interim parking without really taking their input.”
City officials are engaging in a slew of actions to soon close the railroad safe parking program and open a new version, but community members say they weren’t included in that process.
On July 27, the city announced that the existing site would stop functioning on Aug. 27. That announcement also revealed that during its July 12 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO) to officially oversee different safe parking sites across the city.
SLO Homelessness Response Manager Daisy Wiberg mentioned during the July 12 Planning Commission meeting that the city identified a portion of Palm Street adjacent to the Vets Hall as an interim safe parking site.
It took the city’s Community Development Department until Aug. 4 to notify property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed Palm Street site about the project and location selection. Residents had until Aug. 14 to submit their comments. Letters of opposition flooded City Hall by the time the SLO City Council gathered to meet the following day.
“Given the recent reports at the county parking site, expanding beyond Prado and the Railroad District into a residential neighborhood is a poorly placed ‘Band-Aid,'” Bozzano wrote in an email to the city. “There are plenty of wide streets, with little through traffic between 7 p.m. [and] 7 a.m., within the commercial and manufacturing zones outside of SLO City’s residential areas, that can serve this purpose better than Palm Street.”
In the wake of a growing homelessness crisis, SLO’s temporary railroad safe parking site has been open since March 2021, serving unhoused people living out of their vehicles. The pilot program underwent a reboot last February to correct past mistakes and streamline resources for its participants. At the time, program leaders from CAPSLO and the city told New Times the site was “loosely managed” and “light touch.” They ranked it as the lowest in level of care compared to the county-run Oklahoma Avenue safe parking site and the city-managed parking program at 40 Prado.
Last September, the Railroad Square safe parking site became cause for concern again when the city notified the San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum and its neighbors about upcoming plans to make the parking program permanent. Business owners, their patrons, and neighbors complained about the parking nuisances, occasional alleged verbal harassment, and “human waste, trash, and drug paraphernalia,” according to past New Times reporting. City officials then delayed the hearing to make the site permanent.
Now, the city is faced with another postponement. Based on the mass feedback from the public, Director of Community Development Timothea Tway deferred the decision about finalizing the Palm Street location proposal to the Planning Commission. The commission will discuss approving or denying that location at an unconfirmed date in September. Its decision will then be subject to a 10-day appeal period, and if appealed, the SLO City Council will step in for the final determination. City officials hope that the first rotating safe parking site will be ready for use by Oct. 1.
Wiberg, SLO’s homelessness response manager, said that the railroad safe parking site worked within the timeline of the local emergency COVID-19 resolution.
“That was instated during the pandemic and with the statewide emergency order being lifted on Feb. 28, the city had 180 days to continue operating the program at that location per that resolution,” Wiberg said. “We had 180 days to continue the program, which gets us to Aug. 27.”
As of Aug. 21, the railroad safe parking site housed 38 people. Wiberg called it a success and as the homelessness response manager, she’s currently in talks with faith leaders to secure multiple locations to add to the proposed list of rotating safe parking sites. Each site is expected to host the program for one or two months and not more than 120 days.
“We’ve heard a desire from the faith community of wanting to help,” she said. “We’ve seen with the safe parking program at the railroad location, participants very organically build a sense of community amongst themselves. We felt that partnering with the faith community would be another extension of community for them.”
Wiberg stressed that the city’s rotating safe parking program is different from the county’s contentious Oklahoma Avenue parking program not just because of its temporary nature. It also better adheres to the city’s understanding of “safe parking.”
“The county’s safe parking site was 24 hours a day, and ours is overnight parking from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m.,” she said. “The true definition of safe parking is the overnight model.”
At the SLO City Council meeting on Aug. 15, Wiberg also touted New Beginnings—the city of Santa Barbara’s safe parking program—as a successful model to emulate. SLO also sought inspiration from the city of Fremont’s safe parking host site program that relies on the rotating structure with five church sites.
Cassie Roach, the program manager of Santa Barbara’s New Beginnings, told New Times that the success of the 19-year-old program that oversees 26 safe parking locations has officials contact them for advice from across the nation. The frequency prompted the group to create a best practices manual that’s on its second edition now.
According to Roach, other communities all ask for pointers on the same facet of New Beginnings’ approach.
“It’s the case management piece. Sometimes that gets lost in translation,” she said. “A church that’s trying to start a program doesn’t have the staff to start it and then having to look into an agency to help provide that support.”
While SLO city staff consult with New Beginnings and other groups about improving the proposed safe parking program, residents like Bozzano are concerned about what enforcement—or the lack of it—can look like in the future. Along with a group of neighbors, Bozzano contacted SLO Parking Program Manager Gaven Hussey in June about setting up a residential parking district because of shrinking parking spaces.
“Parking Services currently does not have the staffing resources to implement or enforce new parking districts or expand existing districts and have an item before Council on July 11,” Hussey wrote in his reply via email to Bozzano. “We are currently in the process of asking the City Council permission to temporarily suspend the formation of new or expansion of existing districts.”
Wiberg told New Times that general parking enforcement issues are separate from the safe parking program. The Railroad Square safe parking site is currently administered by CAPSLO’s rights and responsibilities document, she added. A similar document will be used for the rotating sites too, with more enforcement details to be finalized after the Planning Commission’s September meeting. Δ
Reach Staff Writer Bulbul Rajagopal at brajagopal@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 24 – Sep 3, 2023.
Will these sites really end up rotating and be truly “temporary”? As we have seen from the Oklahoma Avenue site, time limits and “contracts” mean little to the residents, and government has little interest in confronting the optics of evicting them. What will be done about vehicles which become inoperable, especially when the resident is living in it? As was noted, the participants “organically build a sense of community amongst themselves” – they may not want to leave. The planning requires a little more clarity, and a lot less wishful thinking.
.
JOHN DONEGAN QUOTE #1: “Will these sites really end up rotating and be truly “temporary”?”
In rotation, hopefully so, and if the rotation works with the faith community or another entity, it is therefore not “temporary.”
.
JOHN DONEGAN QUOTE #2: “What will be done about vehicles which become inoperable, especially when the resident is living in it?”
You are comparing apples with oranges with the Oklahoma Avenue site, you missed the point that Daisy Wiberg stated that the “vehicle homeless” in the safe parking program leave said site at 7am in the morning, and return at 7pm for 12 hours of safe parking. All vehicles have to be in operating condition to join CAPSLO Safe Parking.
.
JOHN DONEGAN QUOTE #3: “As was noted, the participants “organically build a sense of community amongst themselves” – they may not want to leave.”
You didn’t understand that the Safe Parking Program is only for the night time for 12 hours, whereas the membership in this program DO NOT have the option to stay in place.
Furthermore, there has been strict planning to be a member of the Safe Parking Program from CAPSLO and the City where the rules are set in place that have to be followed, or you will be ejected from the program.
.
Anthony Bozzano,
YOUR QUOTE OR UNNEEDED DESPAIR: “I walk my child to day care every day, and that’s right where I walk through,” he said. “I felt like it’s pretty irresponsible of the city to force the people who live in that neighborhood to deal with the interim parking without really taking their input.”
Seemingly you have nothing to worry about since the Palm Street Safe Parking looks to be off the books. Furthermore, if it did happen, I am told that the membership of the Safe Parking Program understood why the residents were upset, and for the most part, they wouldn’t be at the Palm Street parking.
Furthermore, you had nothing to worry about in the first place unless you walked your child to day care before 7am in the morning or picked them up after 6pm, because if it had worked out at this location, all members of this program have to leave at 7am and return to check in at 6pm.
All of the membership of this program either work in the SLO County area, or are looking for work, or are retired. But, they Can’t afford the very high rent now that exists in our area. Therefore, since some have jobs that are assured at this time, and most have friends or family in the area, they accept that living in their vehicles at night is unfortunately a better option for them.
.
.
THIS FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN THIS STORY IS A BUNCH OF TOTAL LIES!:
“Business owners, their patrons, and neighbors complained about the parking nuisances, occasional alleged verbal harassment, and “human waste, trash, and drug paraphernalia,” according to past New Times reporting. City officials then delayed the hearing to make the site permanent.
This circular reasoning statement shown above by the businesses in the Safe Parking area is the furthest from the REAL TRUTH!
How can business owners, their patrons, and neighbors (which are all businesses in this location) complain about parking nuisances from the Safe Parking Program in the first place, when the members left at 7am in the morning before said businesses were even open, and then complain at 7pm when the members returned when the businesses were closed? They never saw the Safe Parking Program vehicles in the first place so how could they complain about them?
Regarding the alleged verbal harassment, the owner of the Iron Horse building at 1988 Santa Barbara Street blatantly harassed the Safe Parking members by going up to them and taking a picture of them, and their license plates without giving any reason, or the fact of owing said building across from the Safe Parking program! The woman of the membership were nervous of this scary act by the owner of said building, therefore the next morning the owner of the Iron Horse building returned and one of the Safe Parking members confronted him about his scary tactics, and a verbal argument ensued!
When the owner of the Iron Horse building was at a City Council meeting subsequent to the assumed verbal harassment, he complained about it but NEVER said he was the impetus of said harassment because of his scary tactics to the members as stated above! Then he slightly broke down in his appearance not giving the full story, and said he was scared that is son, that drove through the Safe Parking Area at times, for whatever reason, might be in danger of the membership, huh? Then if this was true, and his sone was totally safe, then why drive through the parking area in the first place by harassing the members of the parking program like his father did?
Then the owner of the Iron Horse building returned to harass the membership again by parking sideways in their parking spots when they were checking to their parking spots at 6pm, to harass the membership once again. Then said individual that confronted the owner in question the last time went over to wonder why he was here AGAIN in the first place. Subsequently, the two of them got into another argument where the owner of the Iron Horse building once again was there to harass the membership of the Safe Parking Program.
The statement of “human waste, trash, and drug paraphernalia, upon CAPSLOs Safe Parking Programs parking area, are all BLATANT LIES!!! First thing, CAPSLO and the city will easily state that this did not happen because their monitors are there in the morning to make sure all members leave by 7am, and they returned to check in the membership at 6pm, where they most certainly would have noticed such disgusting happenings at the parking area if they existed, which they did not in lying about the Safe Parking Program membership!
Besides, the city of SLO supplied 2 porta potties, a wash station and a dumpster for the membership to use at the North end, plus they had a 24 hour camera as well.
There are two sides to any fence, and what is presented is the other side is in truth at the expense of the people that initiated such wrongful statements, and DID NOT give the full story.
Gary Ackerman: I understand that all vehicles must be “in operating condition” in order to join, or otherwise they would not have been able to arrive to the site in the first place. But all vehicles are capable of becoming “inoperable”, especially the older vehicles typically owned by the homeless, who may not have the funds to have them repaired. Will the programs give them the money to repair the vehicle? Will the city tow the vehicle? To what location? What will the resident then live in?
I understand that the program only allows parking at certain hours. What will be done if the resident is unwilling, or unable to move when required? As I noted re Oklahoma, there were rules there limiting stays, which have been widely disregarded. Will the City of SLO actually be willing to evict a resident? In front of TV cameras or other residents recording on their phones? Now is the time to take a hard look at how this will actually function.
Having rules and guidelines in place offers little assurances. The homeless are often pretty helpless and pitiful, and enforcing compliance would seem heartless to many voters, who might then be inclined to “punish” the policymakers behind the move. I have not seen anything from local government indicating that it is actually willing to enforce compliance with rules and guidelines. It is unreasonable to expect the residents and businesses in the area of accept bare assurances.
Hahaha. John Donegan proving his logical prowess once again. Yes, John, what if these edge cases that apply to literally any vehicle or policy in the city happen to occur to a homeless person? Shouldn’t we selectively adjudicate absolutely every aspect of these potential cases simply because the population in question happens to be homeless?
What if John Donegan’s personal home is flooded while his car is in the shop? Where will he go? Shouldn’t the city design and implement a policy for that? I am smart.
.
John Donagan,
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE #1: “Gary Ackerman: I understand that all vehicles must be “in operating condition” in order to join, or otherwise they would not have been able to arrive to the site in the first place. But all vehicles are capable of becoming “inoperable”, especially the older vehicles typically owned by the homeless, who may not have the funds to have them repaired.”
You forget once again, that the discussion is regarding the “vehicle homeless” that work, looking for work, or are retired, but yet cannot afford the drastic rent in the SLO area. Where they have newer and better cars than probably the people that disparage them for existing! I went over to the RR Safe Parking Program last night and took a revealing picture of these “alleged” vehicles that are soon to break down like YOU SAID in your begging the question statement, and they are surprisingly shown in the link below to be for the most part, newer and well taken care of vehicles at your expense once again:
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEO7EKO
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE #2: “Will the programs give them the money to repair the vehicle? Will the city tow the vehicle? To what location? What will the resident then live in?”
As far as I am told the owners of these newer vehicles as shown in the link above, are on their own for repairs. If repairs are needed, they can either stay with friends or family for a short time, or at 40 Prado until said vehicle is repaired.
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE #3: I understand that the program only allows parking at certain hours. What will be done if the resident is unwilling, or unable to move when required? As I noted re Oklahoma, there were rules there limiting stays, which have been widely disregarded.”
Let me give you one of your insipid hypotheticals back to you. relating to your statement above, what if a meterior struck the RR Safe Parking area where then it didn’t matter if they were willing to move or not! Get it?
Tell me if you’ve heard this adage before in our conversation, you are comparing apples with oranges AGAIN at your expense. Oklahoma Vehicle Homeless were run by the county, with moderator help at times from CAPSLO, whereas the RR Safe Parking program was ran specifically by CAPSLO with their monitors with very strict rules that had to be followed and signed in a contract, or you were out of the program. 2+2=4.
Relative to a vehicle not being moved, and with the contract of the Safe Parking Program in not allowing a vehicle to stay past 7am, and for whatever reason said vehicle could not leave, they are given one hour to move it, or it will be towed at the owners expense and picked up later after paying for all the expenses.
You erroneously keep comparing the RR Safe Parking Program to the Oklahoma county program which is 180 degrees apart!
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE #4: “Will the City of SLO actually be willing to evict a resident? In front of TV cameras or other residents recording on their phones? Now is the time to take a hard look at how this will actually function.”
Okay, using your hypothetical school of thinking again, then subsequent to the meteor crash on the RR Parking Lot, and if any Homeless Vehicles were left, CAPSLO in behalf of the City of SLO has the authority to “evict” any member for their wrongdoing to have been in the path of said meteor in the first place at Safe Parking! Furthermore, there is no need for any TV news when doing so, unless you need this type of enjoyment to watch at the expense of a Vehicle Homeless person’s vehicle being towed away to fullfill some type of inside need of yours in your seemingly disregard of the vehicle homeless community. Aren’t hypotheticals like yours fun at our expense? Sure they are!
.
.
John Donegan,
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE #5: Having rules and guidelines in place offers little assurances. The homeless are often pretty helpless and pitiful, and enforcing compliance would seem heartless to many voters, who might then be inclined to “punish” the policymakers behind the move.
Do you want the apple or the orange this time in your proposition above because once again your rhetoric is unfounded AGAIN? The rules that Safe Parking has for the Vehicle Homeless are strict, and have to be followed or said member that does not follow the rules is out of the program, period!
When you state inaccurately AGAIN that the homeless are pretty helpless and pitiful, is not true to the Vehicle Homeless in the safe parking program, as one example, look at their vehicles in the link provided above, of which are better than my current vehicle, and hopefully not yours as well because that would certainly, in part,. discard your argument altogether!
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE #6: I have not seen anything from local government indicating that it is actually willing to enforce compliance with rules and guidelines. It is unreasonable to expect the residents and businesses in the area of accept bare assurances.
Tell me if you heard this statement before in our conversations, IT IS CAPSLO THAT ENFORCES THE RULES THAT SAID MEMBERS OF THE RR SAFE PARKING PROGRAM SIGNED AND AGREED WITH, not the City of SLO!
As stated before, there are NO RESIDENTS in homes within the RR Safe Parking area, and the businesses that woefully complained that NEVER SAW the Vehicle Homeless in the first place because AGAIN, they left at 7am before the businesses even opened their doors, AND, the fact that said businesses were closed before the membership came back at 7pm to take their places at the Safe Parking Program!
John Donegan, you unfortunately are one of the many that when you hear the term Homeless you unwittingly take the position that you equate the members of the Vehicle Homeless Safe Parking Program to be the same as the unfortunate homeless that you see uptown, that sleep in the doorways of businesses and beg for their needed food in the daytime.
The Vehicle Homeless as I have explained, seemingly are the upper level of being homeless, where they really dont need anyones pity, but just to have a simple place to park their vehicles in a safe manner between 7pm until 7 am, as most of them work and pay taxes, and the ones that are retired, probably have paid more taxes over the years than you have to date!
WAIT! I WILL PLAY YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL GAME AGAIN, OKAY?: Where lets say that if the Palm Street location worked out, therefore in the homes nearby, what would possibly be the percentage of wrongdoings within said homes if the Parking Members walked around 3 square blocks for exercise?
Would they hear the parents beating their children, would they see illegal drug usage by seeing syringes laying in the homeowners driveways, or maybe see severe punishment to family members and such through the windows where they are now witnesses in having to call 911? Do you see how begging the question hypotheticals like mine and EQUAL TO YOURS can come back to bite you if they were actually accepted? Sure you can.
.
Gary Ackerman: Your sales pitch is unconvincing. Explain the difficulty that the county is having closing down the Oklahoma site, which also serves the homeless with cars, a similar population. A large number of the vehicles there appear inoperable. There also appears to be a crime problem, as I have noticed a lot of newly erected security fencing around Oklahoma. They also have regulations on the length of a stay permitted, and required the residents to sign contracts. Yet, you are assuring me that, despite a similar population served, somehow your regulations will prevent a similar problem this time, and that the regulations are “strict”. Sure they are. You are also assuring me that the concerns of the nearby residents and businesses are groundless, and are feigning surprise that anyone could possibly have an objection. Just because some of the participants are employed and high-functioning, and don’t create problems, doesn’t mean that ALL of the participants will be.
.
John Donegan,
YOUR IGNORANT QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: “Your sales pitch is unconvincing. Explain the difficulty that the county is having closing down the Oklahoma site, which also serves the homeless with cars, a similar population.”
Once again, you are having a VERY HARD TIME in differentiating the homeless at Oklahoma/Kansas location, and the Vehicle Homeless at the former Railroad Safe Parking Program!
First thing, we’re told that the County was going to shut down the Oklahoma location at once, then seemingly they realized that all of those RV’s, cars, and trailers would be placed at locations around SLO County. Therefore, they will be closing down this location through “attrition” when they can find housing for each of the unfortunate residents of the Oklahoma site, which seemingly will be a long time.
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL AGAIN: “Yet, you are assuring me that, despite a similar population served,………”
WRONG! You’re grasping for straws at the onset of your first post, and your continued begging the question hypotheticals are truly becoming very tiring at your embarrassing expense.
Let me school you ONCE AGAIN in showing the outright differences of the unfortunate population at the Oklahoma location that you inadvertently say is the same as the former Railroad Safe Parking location in the two images below:
Former Railroad Safe Parking for the Vehicle Homeless image:
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEO7EKO
Oklahoma/Kansas Ave. Vehicle Parking for the poor:
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEOECM7
Did you see the difference? Huh? Then you equate that the populations are the same, of which THEY ARE NOT as shown! Duh! The county of SLO when they started the Oklahoma location let it get away from them even though it was “structured,” whereas the CAPSLO/CITY location at the Railroad Safe Parking program had “structure” but they did not let it get away from them as easily shown in the 2 images above. Get it?
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE AGAIN:
“You are also assuring me that the concerns of the nearby residents and businesses are groundless, and are feigning surprise that anyone could possibly have an objection.”
Correcto! QUIT LYING, there were no residents nearby, only 3 businesses. REREAD my statements above regarding this FACT, and if you have any more feeble attempts to derail them, I’ll correct you again!
YOUR BEGGING THE QUESTION HYPOTHETICAL QUOTE AGAIN: “Just because some of the participants are employed and high-functioning, and don’t create problems, doesn’t mean that ALL of the participants will be.”
AGAIN, for the umpteenth time; if said members are not following the rules, they are out of the program, period! So you won’t find yourself REITERATING former facts that have already been answered, then before you make a refutation next time, READ what I have said before so you don’t have to remove one foot to insert the other AGAIN!
Awaiting your next foray into you producing more begging the question hypotheticals at your embarrassing expense. 🙁
.