Open-Air Shelter Would Hurt Chinatown
Re “ ‘Cuckoo’s Nest’ Revisited,” editorial, Nov. 22: L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca’s proposed Public Safety Center for the Homeless will be located at North Main Street and Vignes Street, directly across from Chinatown. The proposed shelter will be a drop-in center that is currently planned to house 150 residents. The resident number will inevitably rise, plus the possibility of creating an additional skid row due to the unavoidable overflow. The center will be immediately adjacent to El Pueblo Historical Monument and Chinatown. It will also be located next to the local recycling yard, which is already a major source concern with a constant stream of materials of questionable origin. The proposed center will provide counseling and other services in-house but will not feed the residents. Where will the residents seek food other than to walk across the street into Chinatown?
The local community fought a losing battle to prevent the construction of the Twin Towers County Jail facility. The only homicide in Chinatown over the past three years was due to a mentally ill inmate released from the jail facility who proceeded to rampage through Chinatown, finally fatally striking an elderly woman in front of our senior complex.
Along with members of the greater downtown community, I have met with Baca about the proposed center. While the sheriff’s intent is commendable, his solution to the overall homeless issue requires far more input from all facets of the community. To strike a fatal blow to an existing Chinatown community on the rebound with a drop-in-the-bucket solution to the cause of the homeless issue clearly requires much greater thought.
George Yu
Los Angeles
Re “Sheriff Social Worker,” editorial, Nov. 20: It is wrong for Baca to assume that an appropriate response to homeless people suffering the effects of mental illness and substance abuse is another “tent city.” The use of $8 million to develop 150 tent-like accommodations for this population is money ill-spent. A more humanitarian approach would be to subsidize existing apartment units for people who may refuse services while they are homeless but who will often, nevertheless, care properly for their own small space--whatever that space may be--and eventually respond to assistance.
Studies over the past two decades indicate that the homeless are best served after they are assisted in relocating into private space of their own, not while they are still experiencing homelessness. I recommend using the money instead to do what other cities have successfully done: 1) master-leasing old apartment buildings to provide three to six months safe housing for some people while they begin the process of engagement with social services, medication and detoxification; 2) paying rent for three to six months in existing SROs and studio apartments for others; and 3) ensuring that people with mental illness and/or addictions are not released from jails into the streets without an adequate housing/social services plan, at least for the short term.
Tanya Tull
President, Beyond Shelter
Los Angeles
