Why fight about “resolving” homelessness — to use the dubious term that came out of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the issue — when a concrete solution is right in front of us?
That is outgoing county supervisor Das William’s matter-of-fact line of thinking when it comes to the Santa Barbara Safe Parking Program, which he wants to see gain momentum before he officially leaves office in January.
Willams has long championed Safe Parking — run by nonprofit New Beginnings — because of its results: By moving people living in their cars to safe, managed parking lots, you open up a real avenue to housing.
He said he remembers the “battles” over homelessness before Safe Parking gave them a “better way,” with numbers to back it up: The program has successfully moved over 120 people into housing in the past fiscal year alone.
But what’s next? Williams brought up two avenues — public lots and private lots. More public lots would be essentially “free,” with no cost to use the lot, but many jurisdictions are not enthusiastic, to put it politely. “A lot of places could be doing more,” he said, but it is particularly a problem in Santa Maria, which does not have a single Safe Parking lot, despite the apparent need in the region. If the city got behind it, he mused, a whole host of lots would be “unlocked.” They’re working on making that a reality, he added.
Even opening up some lots with only five spaces per lot would make a difference, said Kristine Schwarz, executive director of New Beginnings. Staff regularly reaches out to owners of appropriate lots for new Safe Parking locations, such as faith-based organizations or nonprofits.
But “there are still many locations county-wide where we have not yet had success in partnering with lot owners, including both private and public lots,” Schwarz said.
To help beef up the program, Williams wants the county to pay for new sites out of encampment resolution grants.
He said they have been offered sites that would be “very cheap” — what qualifies as “cheap,” he didn’t say — but which they have not gone for because the lot owners asked for any money at all.
But spending a little here and there is worth it, he thinks, to support this low-hanging-fruit solution. “It’s a bargain compared to some other opportunities,” he said. They just need a greater consensus on the idea to move forward.
What that means for New Beginnings’ modus operandi, however, complicates things. Right now, they offer no compensation to anyone for using their existing lots that would otherwise sit empty at night.
What they do pay for is operating expenses — monitoring, porta potties, insurance, and staff management. They still have no dedicated state or federal funding, and any costs are covered primarily by city and county human service funding, donations, and grants.
“If we did not have the partnerships we have that allow us to use these lots at no cost, we would be unable to afford to operate the program,” Schwarz said.
“It would not be fair to pay some lot owners and not others. Very few lot owners have ever asked us for payment. Paying rent to occupy the lots would not be sustainable and would very negatively impact the ongoing sustainability of the program.”
Of course, Williams wants the county to pay for the lots, not New Beginnings. And he thinks the county needs them to make a dent on homelessness.
“We shouldn’t be proceeding without more Safe Parking spots,” he said. “Because I’m leaving, there’s this push to get more people who are homeless in vehicles off the streets, but that’s short-sighted. We should make sure people have a place to go before clearing them from car encampments — if not, we’re just shuffling them to another neighborhood.”
