The Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building is a designated emergency shelter for the temporarily homeless due to such things as natural disasters. However, this proposal recommends that the Joe Rodota Trail homeless encampment occupants be moved to the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building for use as a homeless emergency shelter because of a shelter crisis.
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors (BOS) will consider, on Tuesday, February 21, 2023, several recommended actions for persons experiencing homelessness. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
First, the BOS must adopt a Resolution declaring a Shelter Crisis on or around the portion of the Joe Rodota Trail located within the City of Santa Rosa due to a threat to the health and safety of those experiencing homelessness and to the natural environment, public health, and well-being of the community. Then, the BOS will need to approve the creation and operation of emergency housing facilities at the Santa Rosa Veterans Building and the Sonoma County Administration Center, along with the provision of behavioral health, medical, and social services as called for in Sonoma County’s Regional Continuum of Care 5-Year Plan. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
The 8.5-mile-long Joe Rodota Trail (JRT) is owned by the County of Sonoma and managed by its Regional Parks department. The trail provides cyclists, runners, walkers, and others with a paved trail connecting Santa Rosa to Sebastopol. It is heavily used by commuters, recreational cyclists, and others as a Class 1 Bikeway, offering safety and separation from vehicles. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
The County reports that the JRT is experiencing growing encampments creating health and safety issues for trail users, unhoused residents, and the adjacent residential communities. According to the County’s Strategic Plan and the Continuum of Care’s 2023-20227 Regional Strategic Plan on Homelessness, County staff recommends establishing up to two emergency housing facility locations, including but not limited to tents and places for RVs and cars with site supervision, perimeter fencing and security, and wrap-around services at the two locations listed above. The recommendations include budgetary adjustments totaling $3.05 million for the up to a 12-month emergency safe sleeping location, trail restoration, and implementation of the amended ordinance limiting camping on public property. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
In 2019-2020 the occupants of the Joe Rodota Trail encampment were offered alternative shelter. The trail was restored and reopened to the public at the cost of $12 million, which included the creation of the Los Guilicos Village in early 2020, which is still in operation today and serves as a place for encampment and other unhoused residents to stabilize and receive case management and related behavioral and physical health care. In partnership with or alongside several Sonoma County cities, the County has completed several projects that add to the region’s inventory of interim and permanent supportive housing. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
Is the Shelter Crisis an emergency on or around a portion of the Joe Rodota Trail? And if so, to whom?
It might be moot to argue over semantics, but in this case, it might be worth pointing out that there is a difference between crisis and emergency. The American Heritage Dictionary defines crisis as “a crucial or decisive point or situation, especially a difficult or unstable situation involving an impending change.”
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an emergency as “an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action.”
The word emergency always implies that it requires urgent intervention, such as caused by natural disasters.
No one is disputing the housing and shelter crisis that we all know isn’t new and has been a growing problem for over two decades.
On the one hand, it doesn’t appear to be an emergency for the people living there since the encampment location seems to be quite popular and continues to grow despite the numerous previous attempts to divert persons experiencing homelessness to other places.
On the other hand, it appears to be an emergency for commuters, recreational cyclists, runners, and walkers.
The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness calls on communities to transform their homelessness services into crisis response systems that prevent homelessness whenever possible and rapidly return people experiencing homelessness to stable housing.
According to the August 2017 Key Considerations for Implementing Emergency Shelter Within an Effective Crisis Response System, “While emergency shelters can play an essential role within an effective, housing-focused crisis response system, it should not be assumed that every community where there are currently people experiencing unsheltered homelessness needs to expand the supply of emergency shelter. Communities should also consider how a broad range of changes and improvements within their crisis response systems will impact the need and demand for emergency shelter and other crisis housing.”
It is unclear how the County has used a broad range of improvements that have impacted the need and demand for emergency shelter, such as diversion programs.
The US Interagency Council On Homelessness document provides several strategies; one, in particular, stands out:
"Divert people from emergency shelters when possible. Emergency shelters should be reserved for providing temporary housing for people facing crises who are seeking safety and/or have nowhere else to go."
In the case of the Sonoma County plan for the emergency homeless shelter at the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building, the project is estimated for up to 12 months. The risk of approving such a plan also increases the probability that future plans will keep the emergency homeless shelter at the Veterans Memorial Building longer than the initial 12 months.
A good question to ask the County is what are their targeted diversion strategies to decrease entries into homelessness and quickly connect people facing a housing crisis with a viable housing option BEFORE entering an emergency shelter?
Wouldn’t you want to know what the County has been doing, is doing, or is planning on doing to divert people from entering emergency homeless shelters in the first place?
A good diversion plan would mean the County would not need to decide on resolutions like what will be going before them tomorrow.
"Diversion is a strategy that keeps people from entering emergency shelter, when possible, by helping them immediately identify alternative, safe housing arrangements (e.g., moving into a shared living arrangement with family members) and, if necessary, connecting them with services and financial assistance to help them return to permanent housing." (US Interagency Council On Homelessness, Aug 2017).
Under Government Code section 8698.2, the County and Community Development Commission (CDC) can declare a Shelter Crisis upon a finding that “a significant number of persons within the jurisdiction of the governing body are without the ability to obtain shelter, and that the situation has resulted in a threat to the health and safety of those persons.” In making this declaration, the County and CDC may limit the declared Shelter Crisis to any geographic portion of the state. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
The proposed resolution proffers that due to the persistent and ongoing encampments the County and City of Santa Rosa have been responding to for several years, as well as an insufficient number of shelter placements available to accommodate all of the individuals living along the Joe Rodota Trail, recommends that the BOS and the CDC declare a Shelter Crisis so that the County can expeditiously create additional emergency housing facilities to address the growing encampments in the area. (Sonoma County File #: 2023-0240)
And what about the Veteran Community? Was an assessment conducted to see how an emergency homeless shelter would impact them and the use of the Veterans Memorial Building?
There are a few big problems with the proposed Shelter Crisis Resolution, one of which glaringly fails to consider the people who use the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building, namely the Veteran community, who, for some, feel the County has treated them like second-class citizens for decades.
Moving the Joe Rodota Trail (JRT) encampment to the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building, among other things, fails to consider the well-being, health, and safety issues of Veterans Memorial Building users and the adjacent residential communities.
In other words, the concerns and well-being of the Veteran community once again take a lower priority than other community groups.
While the County proffers that the JRT is intended to be enjoyed by the public at large, the existence of encampments on the trail impedes the public use of this property for its intended purpose, blocks the safe and efficient passage of bicycles, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles through the designated right-of-way.
The Veteran community argues that the Veterans Memorial Building is also intended to be enjoyed by the public and the veteran community. Moving a homeless encampment to the Veterans Memorial Building impedes the use of this property for its intended purpose. Although the proposal includes managed emergency housing and security, some argue that the proposed emergency shelter at the Veterans Memorial Building will still threaten public health and the safety and well-being of the community at large.
Furthermore, some fear the public and the veteran community will not feel safe enough to rent or use the Veterans Memorial Building because of the homeless shelter.
Has the County been trying to dissuade Veterans from using the Veterans Memorial Buildings?
While no smoking gun supports such allegations, some infer there is a motive.
According to California Military and Veterans Code, once Veterans abandon using a Veterans Memorial Building, the County is no longer legally obligated to maintain buildings, memorial halls, meeting places, or recreation centers for the use or benefit of one or more Veterans’ organizations.
According to this California Code, a County or City cannot revoke the dedication so long as the Veterans’ organizations have not violated the terms and conditions of the dedication or abandoned the Veterans Memorial Building.
However, the County or City is bound by law to dedicate a substitute facility as long as the Veterans organizations have consented to the proposed County or City action or have abandoned the use of the facilities.
Some Veterans believe the actions of the County over the years have been to dissuade Veterans from using the Veterans Memorial Buildings so that the County is no longer legally required to maintain the buildings or dedicate new Veterans Memorial Building facilities.
Some say it’s as if the County of Sonoma is using the Captain Charles V. Gridley Camp No. 104, United Spanish War Veterans, v. Board of Supervisors of Butte County et al. 98 Cal.App.585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1929) case as a road map to dissuade Veterans’ organizations’ use of the building, thereby allowing its demise.
In the instance of the County using the Veterans Memorial Building or the property of the Memorial Building to house the homeless or anyone else, they have a legal right to do that. That right, however, is limited to not interfering with the use of the building by Nationally Chartered Veterans Organizations.
Suppose the homeless residency causes parking spaces not to be available, restrooms to be unusable, hazardous health and unsafe conditions, or making the building use dangerous. In that case, they will be violating the Code.
What is your opinion?
Do you think the homeless emergency shelter will interfere with the use of the building by Veterans’ Organizations? And why?
Do you think the County has violated any part or parts of the Military and Veteran Code? If so, which ones?
Another interesting case was decided in the Second District, California Court of Appeal in VFW v. City of El Paso De Robles, 62 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1080-82 (1998), the court held that the City of El Paso De Robles was obligated, pursuant to yet another California law, the Municipal and Military Veterans Code, Chapter 2., Cal. Code 1262, to maintain a veterans memorial building that it has purchased from the County pursuant.
In this case, an action for declaratory relief was filed after City closed the Paso Robles Veterans Building for safety reasons and claimed a lack of funds to repair the building, alleging that the building closure violated section 1262 of the Military and Veterans Code.
"Government Code section 37461 et seq., which is similar to Military and Veterans Code section 1262, provides a separate and distinct basis for our conclusion that City has a duty to maintain the veterans' building. Government Code section 37461 states in pertinent part: 'A City may provide and maintain…buildings, memorial halls, and meeting places for veterans' patriotic, fraternal, and benevolent associations.'
While the language of Government Code section 37451 is permissive, i.e., it uses the word 'may,', similar language was construed in Gridley Camp to mean that once a government entity dedicates a veterans' memorial, it has a mandatory duty to maintain it. (Gridley Camp No. 104 v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 98 Cal.App. at p.597.) There is no good reason to construe the language of Government Code section 37451 differently than Military and Veterans Code section 1262. Thus, we hold that when a city elects to purchase a dedicated veterans' building, it assumes a mandatory duty to maintain, repair, or replace the building or, in the alternative, to dedicate a substitute facility pursuant to Government Code section 37451. When the City complies with our decision, the reasonable expectations of all of the parties will again be met." (Veterans of Foreign Wars v. City of El Paso de Robles, 62 Cal.App.4th 1077, 1080-82 (1998)).
In summary, the decision determined that the City of El Paso de Robles was legally obligated to build a new Veterans Memorial Building, which they did.
What are your thoughts?
Will Sonoma County veterans’ organizations abandon the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building because they believe the County has made it even more challenging to use the facility?
Or will the Sonoma County veteran community come together as a united front to either save the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building or agree upon a new facility that can be dedicated as the new Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building?
Are you willing to put in the effort to save the old Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building or build a new Veterans Memorial Building?
Is the effort worth it?
Where do you suggest a new facility should be built?
Those interested in saving a Veterans Memorial Building dedication in Santa Rosa need to hurry, though, because the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors meets tomorrow to decide the fate of the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building with very little input from the veteran community.
At the very least, veterans and their supporters must request that the Board of Supervisors wait to decide on the recommendations until the veteran community has weighed in and an assessment has been conducted to determine the impact the emergency homeless shelter will have on the Sonoma County veteran community and the Veterans Memorial Building.
Those interested in furthering the discussion online, please find us on Facebook or Twitter to publicly share ideas or send us a private email.