Council rejects homeless shelter for Waterman Avenue
The City Council voted Monday night to halt a process that would have had the planning commission hold a hearing on proposed homeless shelter that would have been established at 673 South Waterman Avenue.
The shelter is being pursued by an organization called Human Potential Consultants. HPC and the city have engaged in a prolonged and controversial process to figure out where a shelter can be located. The talks have been conducted under the shadow of a state law that officials have said requires San Bernardino to establish a shelter somewhere.
Next up for the city is to consider HPC's application to establish a shelter at 840 North Sierra Way. That location drew community objections because of its proximity to another facility that serves domestic violence victims.
HPC had agreed to appeal the council's rejection of that location pending the consideration of alternative sites. The council's rejection of the Waterman Avenue option puts Sierra Way back on the table. The issue is set to return to the council during its scheduled Sept. 21 meeting.
The homeless shelter proposal was at the center of the most recent public disagreement between Mayor Pat Morris and City Attorney James F. Penman. There was no mention of the controversy during Monday's proceedings.
Penman said in late July that HPC representatives complained of an alleged conflict of interest on the mayor's part. Penman said that HPC was worried that the mayor's daughter was interfering with their project since HPC was interested in a third location near a spot where the mayor's daughter wanted to set up a gymnastics school.
The issue got thornier when HPC denied ever making a complaint against the mayor, although HPC affirmed that they did bring concerns to Penman's office.
Penman has said that he has asked the state Attorney General's office to review the situation to see if a potential conflict exists. Penman has also said that he does not plan to revisit the controversy until getting word from the AG's office.
Morris responded that under state law, there could be no conflict since his daughter is not a dependent child. He furthermore said that his office's only interaction with his daughter was to ask her abandon her interests in that location.
7 Comments
Leave a comment
About SB Now Blog
Andrew Edwards. E-mail Andrew here.
Finally, an intelligent decision is made by the COUNCIL. SB does not need more homes for homeless or ex-felons. Now they must focus on turning down the Mayors effort to locate another one on N. Sierra Way. Perhaps instead it could be located near the Mayor’s home.
I agree with Voters Are Watching. Anyone in city government who thinks we need another such facility should be willing to have it in his/her neighborhood, including the mayor.
It's not so much that they're a homeless shelter. It's that they were dishonest and played our city government officials against one another. They intentionally caused a scrap where both sides were made to look prejudiced and as if they weren't giving the less fortunate a fair shot. It was a smart play, but I'm glad it didn't work because San Bernardino certainly doesn't want or need businesses like them. You should've seen the look on that perky little lawyer's snout when she realized that her plan had backfired. I was ROLLING! I SWEAR! You could almost see the steam coming from her ears! I thought she was going to squeak, "Well, I NEVER!" THAT was a funny moment.
HPC is a for-profit organization that had portrayed itself as a homeless shelter. How does a "homeless shelter" make money? Well, they are actually placing "homeless" parolees. And that is worth "cha-ching". No actual homeless people from the streets of San Bernardino will be served by HPC. Any homeless person that walks up to their doorstep will be sent away - they work on "referrals" only. Referrals from agencies placing "homeless parolees".
And they make enough money that they can hire high priced lawyers from Beverly Hills....they are using San Bernardino as a dumping ground for their "homeless parolees".
By the way - the city has to put it somewhere. They can not just say "no more shelters" - it is against California law.
There was a big deal when the Salvation Army moved and needed to find a new place. No one wants shelters but they have to be placed in the city somewhere.
Everyone doesn't want it in their ward, but is willing to "dump" in on someone else.
They need to put them in the middle of nowhere, away from neighborhoods and families.
No, the city does NOT need to put it anywhere. We have more than our county's share of homeless/parolees/very low income apartments. The law states you must have an "area" not a facility. The city gave HPC the areas. They then must work within the areas the city designates as suitable. The city did that. Shorett and Baxter don't understand the issues so they spew what they THINK are the facts, misleading anyone watching with sound bites that don't have any basis in fact. But you guys elected them.
Please reference the Press Enterprise’s article and reader feedback about the suggestion to utilize the new $80 million terminal at SBIAP for this housing as it is not expected to be used as a passenger terminal anytime soon. The reader also suggested to start a new airline (Con-Air) to bring the ex-felons from throughout the State to the SBIAP and their new home. At lease there would be some use being made of this facility and the Mayor could take the credit!