Some Sonoma County Veterans claim the proposed managed emergency shelter will interfere with their use of the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building property, while others believe it will demark the beginning of the end for the memorial building. The latter might be too pessimistic, especially compared to the County’s assessment that there will be no adverse impact.
To find solutions to the shelter crisis and the growing homeless encampment on the Joe Rodota Trail (JRT) located within the City of Santa Rosa, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors passed several resolutions on February 21, 2023, which included declaring a shelter crisis, delegating authority to the Director of Health Services or designees to execute goods and services, adjusting the Health Services Department budget to fund the program, cleanup of the JRT, and the creation and operation of two new emergency housing facilities.
Although the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building property and the Sonoma County Administration Center were the first two recommended sites for the new emergency shelters, comments from the public on Tuesday opposing the shelter on the Vet’s building site nudged supervisors to amend the recommended resolution to assess an alternative location, such as at the end of Russell Avenue.
As news began to trickle into the community about plans to erect about fifty tents and park twenty-five RVs in the Vet’s building parking lot, the lack of knowledge about the County’s plans created panic.
The speed at which the County is moving to pass and implement the resolutions, in combination with a failure to properly inform or involve the populations impacted most by the new shelter site, created quite a disturbance, with County staff, bicyclists, and homeless advocates together on one side of the issue and users of the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building and the surrounding neighborhood on the other side.
However, the lines between the sides are not clear-cut. Most people want a resolution to the shelter and homeless crisis because it is the right thing to do. It is the humane thing to do. Yet, there are too many assumptions coming from both sides.
It’s not hard for there to be assumptions since stakeholders have had little time to digest all of the new information and weigh in on the impact of the new shelter locations.
Proponents of the Supervisors’ plans appear to be creating a false narrative that does not accurately reflect the sentiments of the stakeholders who will be most affected.
The frame they have employed to push the plan forward falsely labels concerned citizens as NIMBYs, an acronym for the phrase “not in my backyard.” It carries a derogatory connotation that stakeholders only oppose the plan because it is close to them and alleges that they would tolerate or support it if it was carried out farther away.
While proponents of the Supervisors’ plans seek to de-stigmatize unsheltered persons, it doesn’t appear that they care much about stigmatizing other groups, as seen with the NIMBY labeling, if it means getting what they want.
Vet’s building property stakeholders say it’s not just about adjusting to new residents in the neighborhood but that the County has failed to consider and understand how much of an impact this will have on thousands of people’s lives.
Due to various pressures on the County, including legal and financial pressures, some believe their tunnel vision to help seventy-five people jeopardizes an entire eco-system (referring to the Veteran’s building property) that serves thousands.
The thousands affected range from the neighboring communities to the many different groups who use the Veterans Memorial Building property.
Veterans Memorial Buildings serve as a place for US military veterans to unite, honor their lost compatriots and support one another. These places enable organizations of persons who had engaged in hazardous service for their country to meet and aid in keeping alive the principles upon which the republic rests.
Veterans Memorial Buildings are also sanctuaries to help veterans heal, to help veterans socialize, share camaraderie, and, most of all, never forget their efforts to serve our country.
The gratuitous construction by the Legislature of Veterans Memorial Buildings is for the use of organizations of those who have shown themselves willing to make the ultimate sacrifice (their lives) for the maintenance of the government and who serve in military humanitarian operations outside of the theater of war. These humanitarian missions are equally heroic efforts to deliver, nationally and internationally, medical care, emergency relief, search and rescue, and much more.
In addition to accommodating veterans’ activities, the Santa Rosa Veterans Memorial Building property serves as a cultural center for the community hosting many different types of events, programs, and activities.
If the Legislature had intended only to provide a meeting place and rent the same to any organization, there would have been no occasion for the erection of such buildings under the provisions of the California Military and Veterans Code.
The California Military and Veterans Code (1120, 1121, 1262) is clear in that although Supervisors may incidentally lease for hire memorial buildings or rooms therein for use by other than veterans’ organizations, as long as the veterans’ use thereof is not interfered with.
It also states that Supervisors may adopt such reasonable rules for the occupation of memorial buildings, giving all veterans’ organizations equal facilities.
The statutes empower Supervisors to maintain memorial buildings properly and are mandatory.
There is a dispute between the County and local stakeholders on the degree of impact the shelter will have. Although the Supervisors say there will be no impact, the local stakeholders disagree. During the special meeting on February 21, 2023, the following groups commented on how the shelter would impact them.
Various surrounding community members commented that the property is more than just a concrete slab. They use the property to teach their children how to ride a bicycle, drive a car, play with their dogs, have neighborly walks with their families, and that their children attend activities at the Vet’s building.
The shelter would impact business at the fairgrounds, which uses the Vet’s property for parking. It will also affect local businesses and over five hundred events already scheduled this year at the Vet’s building.
There are hundreds of events and activities that occur year-round at the Vet’s property, such as the Christmas tree lot, Halloween Trunk-or-Treat, Nordquist-Taylor Ballroom dance classes for teens, staging area for the Luther Burbank Rose Parade & Festival, swap meets, flea markets, and the Redwood Empire Food Bank conducts weekly distributions of food filling the entire parking lot to name a few.
In May, the Good Ol’Boys (GOB) hosts their annual “Veteran’s Run,” which usually includes food, live music, vendor booths, and hundreds of motorcycles to benefit veterans.
On July 1, 2023, AMVETS Post 40, in partnership with Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) Post 223 and The 6 Foundation, are hosting the “All American Car Show,” which is expecting to display 250 American-made cars, a pancake breakfast, vendor booths, and 2500 event-goers. Money raised at this event will go to fund local veteran programs.
The County sent out an email to users of the building offering full reimbursement to those wanting to cancel their scheduled events. The Cruisin’ North Car Club Inc. of Sonoma County posted on their Facebook page that they canceled their 10th Annual John Puccioni Memorial Swap Meet and Car Show due to the County’s decision to place the shelter in the parking lot.
Veterans say keeping certain people out of the building will be impossible unless it has full-time security. Prior experience has shown that some people have little respect for the building since they trash and vandalize the bathrooms and other spaces in and around the building.
The County has, for years, neglected the maintenance and upkeep of the seven Veterans Memorial Buildings, citing a lack of funds, despite the rental revenue supplements and the sparse maintenance budget. At the same time, the County’s use of the building continues to place wear and tear on the property and facilities. Within the past few months, the County told the Sonoma Veterans Memorial Building veterans that if they wanted the aging stove and oven replaced, they would need to raise the money to do so.
It’s a wonder how the County will fund the building’s additional maintenance requirement caused by the extended use when they have not adequately funded the current maintenance requirements.
Efforts by veterans to get answers from the Supervisors on how the County will determine whether or not the shelter or any County activity at the property will interfere with Veterans’ activities and thus violate the California Military and Veterans Codes continue to be skillfully skirted through wordsmithing.
“The building won’t be used” or “we are using the parking lot, not the building,” Supervisor Coursey says to avoid Military and Veteran Code compliance questions, which he most recently said during the February 27, 2023, live online community meeting hosted by the County.
Coursey also stated during the February 27, 2023, live meeting that those who use the parking lot would need to figure out how to adjust.
But does the Military and Veteran Code really only apply to the building?
Not so say some Veterans. It might behoove Veterans to seek legal counsel since the Supervisors appear to avoid the essential questions, such as how the County determines when it is not compliant with the California Military and Veterans Code.
An old 1929 case comes to mind and might be worth revisiting. A Writ of Mandate was served on the Butte County Board of Supervisors and taken to court by the Gridley United Spanish War Veterans, who claimed the governing board of the hall discriminated against them, and the judge agreed.
Once the last Veteran stops using the Veterans Memorial Building, the County is no longer mandated to maintain the building. Some Veterans believe the County is adversely affecting their ability to use the facilities by purposefully making everything more challenging. Some believe the shelter placement is another way to deter Veterans from using the property.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Do you share these same sentiments, and why?
Will the homeless emergency shelter be the demise of the Santa Rosa Vets Building?