The unhoused hustle 

Alright, SLO County, are you ready for another two dozen unhoused folks to hit the streets or the creeks? Because they're coming, one way or another ... or maybe not yet. Who knows? We live in litigation nation, baby!

click to enlarge

What's certain is that after months of threats, the county has finally promised to close the Oklahoma Avenue safe parking site on March 18, ejecting—as described in a lawsuit brought against the county—"some two dozen mostly elderly persons with disabilities." The lawsuit alleges the county also plans to "confiscate their mostly nonworking vehicles." Really? That seems extra mean!

Let's face it. Our homeless problem is like an unsolvable hot potato that's once again being tossed back and forth, and it's now landed back in the county's lap by lawsuit-bringer the SLO County chapter of the California Homeless Union that held a Feb. 6 rally outside the county Government Center to protest the March 18 exit date, which they argue was set as retaliation against the federal lawsuit they filed. Get all that? Now the Homeless Union and its attorneys, Anthony Prince and Andrea Henson, say they're going to file a temporary restraining order to stop the county from closing the site.

According to Henson, it's part of the county's ongoing attempt at criminalizing being homeless and living in your vehicle: "You cannot live ... sleep ... and keep bedding in your vehicle or you could face prosecution. So it's important the site remains open because it's a safe haven."

Assistant County Counsel Jon Ansolabehere said the county will fight the restraining order, and he shared the email he sent to Prince outlining the reasons why the county argues enough is enough when it comes to Oklahoma Avenue, pointing out it was never meant to be permanent, the site can't provide health and safety to its residents, that the residents have been told for almost a year they needed to move and find alternative housing, and that the residents haven't availed themselves of offered help to relocate.

Ansolabehere also wrote Prince, "Your interactions with county staff have been rude, disrespectful, and accusatory. Just the other week, in a rude and derogatory manner, you flippantly accused county staff of depriving disabled seniors of their property when all the staff member was trying to do was to facilitate relocation of your client's RV for safe keeping."

The lawsuit argues that one of the options the county has suggested for relocation, 40 Prado Homeless Services Center, is "not a safe place to go," but Ansolabehere scolded Prince for the assertion: "Despite your allegations," 40 Prado "is a professionally run and safe facility. The fact that your clients prefer not to live in a congregate setting does not entitle them to continue to live at Oklahoma parking, which suffers from numerous health and safety problems."

What's for dinner? Hot potatoes. Who wants one?

Speaking of parking, it's nice to know the Shitty of ... er, I mean the city of San Luis Obispo isn't the only community with an effed-up parking system that caused a huge public backlash. Paso Robles has also proven itself tone deaf and foolhardy when it comes to paid parking.

When it began making people pay to park, Paso's program allowed two hours of free parking before they started charging ... provided you registered your vehicle with the city's parking system. After the two free hours, it charged $2 for each additional hour. It was a pain in the ass to register your vehicle, downloading an app and adding your license plate, yada-yada, and lots of people didn't "get it." Many didn't even realize they had to register and they wound up with fat parking tickets on their vehicles even though they were parked for fewer than two hours. Complaints followed, of course.

"We are not criminals and should not be treated as such!" one Paso business owner wrote in a parking survey.

"[It] discourages family from visiting town because of the headache of the parking/forgetting to pay and getting an expensive ticket," resident Kyle Wilson said in the survey.

"The city is eager to give out parking tickets," another resident responded. "Fewer locals are using downtown; downtown parking should be free for taxpaying residents, and the parking ticket is way too high."

In its wisdom, Paso decided to "fix" the problem by taking away free parking altogether and just making everyone pay $1 an hour. Guess how that went over with city residents? Yeah, like a certain hydrogen-filled blimp.

Well, tap those brakes everyone, because free parking is back in Paso Robles ... for now. Paso resident Gary Lehrer sent a "cease and desist" letter to the city, calling the change illegal in part due to Brown Act violations. You can't just go around changing rates willy-nilly without public input, man! So, because there's a real threat they're about to get their asses sued, Paso decided to suspend paid parking.

Enjoy it while you can get it, Paso residents and visitors, because I'm sure city staff is working feverishly on how to restart the paid parking program, hopefully this time with a bit more clarity. For those who liked getting hosed on paid parking, SLO Town's still got your back. Come on down and feed those meters! Δ

The Shredder is safely housed under a desk. Send solutions to homelessness to [email protected].