As a resident of a neighboring community, we strongly oppose building a shelter in this area. While we agree that measures need to be taken to aid our homeless population, this should be done through properly equipped and staffed rehabilitation centers to treat the many with mental illnesses and substance addictions. A "temporary" shelter is not a solution, especially one located in such close proximity to many residential neighborhoods, schools and businesses. How do you propose keeping the community safe and clean from those drug-addled and mentally unstable transients wandering about? They are not getting treatment in these proposed shelters. Bad idea Redondo.
Strongly oppose. The presenter just said that the transitional units elsewhere are becoming permanent. How would the City be able to not stop these "transitional units" becoming permanent? This Aviation site is next to a Northrop daycare/preschool with young children. Has the City Attorney reviewed possible liability if an occupant of one of these "transitional units" poses a threat to the young children at the daycare/preschool? Also, this location is next to a popular park. Once Covid is over, how could the City be able to protect the children who play soccer and other games at the park? Has the City Attorney reviewed possible liability of these issues? What if additional individuals show up that cannot be accommodated by the "transitional units"? I would recommend the City look for alternative locations that would not be close to where young children play and spend a lot of time.
I rightfully object Aviation park as an appropriate location for a shelter. This is a residential area and lacks the means to support transients in all aspects of physical and mental health.
There is an obvious increase in the number of homeless people living in our city at the moment. As a family we have every sympathy and believe that temporary housing measures should be a considered option, however, we strongly oppose the proposed location. It's a very bizarre choice given the surrounding areas. I would worry about the safety of my daughter who walks to and from the middle school and the students who run in the park unattended during school hours. Seeing as we cannot manage our current situation, I do not believe that bringing even more homeless people to our area will benefit our city in any way. We do not have the resources to help people who often have very complex challenges and I worry about an increase in crime for an already over stretched police force. There is no way this will be a temporary arrangement once in place.
This location is not ideal as it is across the street from a residential zone, large park where children play, and a local middle school. This will absolutely create an unsafe and uncertain environment for children and families as the shelter will not be able to control the flow and movements of transients into the park and school vicinity. It’s a terrible proposition to open a shelter without considering the current residents and the parameter of problems this will raise. The area also does not have a nearby mental health facility nor drug rehabilitation center to serve the mass influx of transients who will potentially need these services. This is a neighborhood where people live and raise families. It cannot function as a homeless shelter and will not benefit the community or the people potentially being pushed out there.
I support this on a limited basis as a means of providing temporary housing for the very simple reason that there are already homeless encampments throughout the city already that we have almost no legal ability to mitigate. There's no reason this piece of public property or any other piece of public property can't already be used for overnight camping by the local homeless population due to the Martin v. City of Boise ruling.
If providing a small number of units in a single location where homeless services can be concentrated eliminates overnight camping throughout the remainder of the city that would alleviate a lot of resident concerns and friction. I don't think it's fair for a single location in the city to shoulder the burden of these services though so this would ideally be rotated throughout the city.
Homelessness isn't going to solve itself and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. With the likely expiration of Project RoomKey there will be a significant increase in the homeless population that we'll be unable to mitigate without having some type of limited housing available. Providing a small number of units (10-15?) seems like a reasonable cost for being able to prevent homeless encampments from springing up throughout the city in areas that are less able to deal with the impacts and don't have the services to support them.
We STRONGLY OPPOSE the development of the "temporary" transitional housing at the Aviation Park lot. The placement could not be worse considering how many children and adults utilize the track, field, and gym on a regular basis. This new housing would draw in an increased number of transients - more than is currently already living in our neighborhoods. We made a HUGE investment purchasing a house in this area and to build a development like this will kill our property values and deter many new residents from moving in to Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.
I strongly support building temporary housing for those living in local homeless encampments. This short term solution allows those in need to receive the supportive services required to move them into permanent supportive housing, similar to what Project Room Key has provided. Thank you for taking this proactive stance: encampments are a public health concern, and inevitable C19 evictions are certain to increase the numbers of homeless in our community.
Homelessness is an overwhelming situation. Your dedicated RB team has the good of all the community in mind, and will certainly overcome the hurdles on your way to making this positive impact in the community. I also applaud your initiative in creating the Outdoor Homeless Court for chronically homeless individuals — it truly gives those living in desperate means a chance to be housed and well again — an active part of their community.
Sincerely, Teri Neustaedter
LWV Beach Cities, Housing and Homelessness Chair
LWV LA County, Homelessness Task Force
LWV CA, Homelessness Task Force
We are strongly opposed to building pallet shelter transitional housing on the dirt lot adjacent to Aviation Gym. Aviation Gym, Aviation Field, and RB PAC are all used year-round by families from the community for sporting and arts/culture events, most of which involve children. As a parent of three, I know this first-hand. I'd like to know how you would ensure the safety of those families and their children, not to mention the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods in East Manhattan Beach and North Redondo Beach, both of which also include elementary and middle schools.
1.) What happens to Aviation Field and public use? Aviation Field is used by over a dozen or more youth sports clubs each and every day (during non- pandemic times). Thousands of kids are on the field daily into the late evening. Field space is extremely hard to come by for youth sports. Are we, as parents, supposed to send our kids to a practice field next a homeless encampments OR are youth sports losing one of their larger playing fields to this plan? This decision effects they entire South Bay, not just Redondo Beach. This information should be communicated out to all the local residents, El Segundo, etc.
2.) In speaking with several police officers in the last year, they have indicated that RBPD is severely understaffed. Their reason is due to a lack of interest in joining the police force. Where are we getting the police assigned to the 24/7 patrolling of this homeless encampment?
3.). How will you address the issue of increased drug use/selling of drugs in a residential area and across from a daycare center (there is a daycare center next to Trader Joe’s)? 76% of the homeless community are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs and alcohol (self medicating). This is factual data and these are real concerns. These are encampments, not prisons. This community will come and go as they please.
4.). How will you ensure the safety of all the children that come to Aviation Field and the RB Performing Arts Center for practices, rehearsals and performances?
5.). How will you address the safety of all the residents in North Redondo and East Manhattan?
My family and I just spent our life savings and more to purchase a home near this site. It’s unthinkable that you would establish a homeless camp this close to our neighborhood and willfully place our three children at risk. The claims that this is ‘temporary’ are laughable. Once in place, homeless advocates will assault the city with lawsuits and prevent any effort to uproot them, just as with every other region of LA and Orange County. Inviting homeless into the area will bring crime, drugs and filth. Our only option is to stand up now and block this effort to drag our beautiful city down to the same level as other failing municipalities.
We are strongly opposed to housing any homeless at Aviation Park. We are concerned that "temporary" housing will result in increased transients living in the neighborhood long-term, will increase crime, and will invite those with mental health issues. We live close to the area and take our kids to ride their bikes at the parking lot at the Performing Arts Center. We would stop going if homeless were living there.
I live in NRB and support Option 1, installing the pallet homes. Even without the pandemic and fires/smoke, a housing first approach is the most humane and efficient way to help people become securely housed. Martin vs Boise means that we cannot just push the unhoused around; we need to provide a safe alternative. This is a safe alternative. We should move quickly, while CARE funding is available.
I live in the Fusion complex on Aviation. I have lived there with my family for over 13 years and we have been fortunate to not have much crime. A few things have happened which seemed to be more internal.
From my understanding there are a few homeless camps behind us in the SCE lot. Last I spoke to HPD and was told efforts were being made to clear that out.
Over the years we have had a couple homeless enter the complex and go through the trash. Once we had someone sleep under someone’s steps.
Overall it has been ok.
There are several families in our community.
I am opposed with housing being put so close to our community. I do fear it will bring more crime and more trespassing into our community. Also concerned the value of our property would drop.
I hope that a different location in a area were it is not close to residential will be used instead.
I oppose the plan for the various reasons raised by others in the comments below. Please give fair consideration to the numerous negative impacts that this plan will have on the community, especially given its location near schools, parks and other areas where youth gather year-round.
I think a more global solution needs to be implemented. Will there be healthcare, mental health, drug counseling and additional police resources allocated? Can these resources be guaranteed?
I support the building of the temporary shelter at Aviation Park. I think it’s an area of our city that is relatively far away from homes and businesses, which many residents want. That being said, if there is another location that the council feels would be better, I would be open to that too. Having a shelter is more important than its location. Thank you for all you are doing to try to help our city eradicate homelessness.
I am a local resident and strongly oppose this. This project would adversely effect our local businesses and neighborhoods. More importantly, MB Middle School is blocks away and Aviation Park is used by many children for their team sports. We need to ensure a safe environment for all our children first and foremost.
As a resident of a neighboring community, we strongly oppose building a shelter in this area. While we agree that measures need to be taken to aid our homeless population, this should be done through properly equipped and staffed rehabilitation centers to treat the many with mental illnesses and substance addictions. A "temporary" shelter is not a solution, especially one located in such close proximity to many residential neighborhoods, schools and businesses. How do you propose keeping the community safe and clean from those drug-addled and mentally unstable transients wandering about? They are not getting treatment in these proposed shelters. Bad idea Redondo.
Strongly oppose. The presenter just said that the transitional units elsewhere are becoming permanent. How would the City be able to not stop these "transitional units" becoming permanent? This Aviation site is next to a Northrop daycare/preschool with young children. Has the City Attorney reviewed possible liability if an occupant of one of these "transitional units" poses a threat to the young children at the daycare/preschool? Also, this location is next to a popular park. Once Covid is over, how could the City be able to protect the children who play soccer and other games at the park? Has the City Attorney reviewed possible liability of these issues? What if additional individuals show up that cannot be accommodated by the "transitional units"? I would recommend the City look for alternative locations that would not be close to where young children play and spend a lot of time.
I rightfully object Aviation park as an appropriate location for a shelter. This is a residential area and lacks the means to support transients in all aspects of physical and mental health.
There is an obvious increase in the number of homeless people living in our city at the moment. As a family we have every sympathy and believe that temporary housing measures should be a considered option, however, we strongly oppose the proposed location. It's a very bizarre choice given the surrounding areas. I would worry about the safety of my daughter who walks to and from the middle school and the students who run in the park unattended during school hours. Seeing as we cannot manage our current situation, I do not believe that bringing even more homeless people to our area will benefit our city in any way. We do not have the resources to help people who often have very complex challenges and I worry about an increase in crime for an already over stretched police force. There is no way this will be a temporary arrangement once in place.
This location is not ideal as it is across the street from a residential zone, large park where children play, and a local middle school. This will absolutely create an unsafe and uncertain environment for children and families as the shelter will not be able to control the flow and movements of transients into the park and school vicinity. It’s a terrible proposition to open a shelter without considering the current residents and the parameter of problems this will raise. The area also does not have a nearby mental health facility nor drug rehabilitation center to serve the mass influx of transients who will potentially need these services. This is a neighborhood where people live and raise families. It cannot function as a homeless shelter and will not benefit the community or the people potentially being pushed out there.
I support this on a limited basis as a means of providing temporary housing for the very simple reason that there are already homeless encampments throughout the city already that we have almost no legal ability to mitigate. There's no reason this piece of public property or any other piece of public property can't already be used for overnight camping by the local homeless population due to the Martin v. City of Boise ruling.
If providing a small number of units in a single location where homeless services can be concentrated eliminates overnight camping throughout the remainder of the city that would alleviate a lot of resident concerns and friction. I don't think it's fair for a single location in the city to shoulder the burden of these services though so this would ideally be rotated throughout the city.
Homelessness isn't going to solve itself and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. With the likely expiration of Project RoomKey there will be a significant increase in the homeless population that we'll be unable to mitigate without having some type of limited housing available. Providing a small number of units (10-15?) seems like a reasonable cost for being able to prevent homeless encampments from springing up throughout the city in areas that are less able to deal with the impacts and don't have the services to support them.
We STRONGLY OPPOSE the development of the "temporary" transitional housing at the Aviation Park lot. The placement could not be worse considering how many children and adults utilize the track, field, and gym on a regular basis. This new housing would draw in an increased number of transients - more than is currently already living in our neighborhoods. We made a HUGE investment purchasing a house in this area and to build a development like this will kill our property values and deter many new residents from moving in to Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach.
I strongly support building temporary housing for those living in local homeless encampments. This short term solution allows those in need to receive the supportive services required to move them into permanent supportive housing, similar to what Project Room Key has provided. Thank you for taking this proactive stance: encampments are a public health concern, and inevitable C19 evictions are certain to increase the numbers of homeless in our community.
Homelessness is an overwhelming situation. Your dedicated RB team has the good of all the community in mind, and will certainly overcome the hurdles on your way to making this positive impact in the community. I also applaud your initiative in creating the Outdoor Homeless Court for chronically homeless individuals — it truly gives those living in desperate means a chance to be housed and well again — an active part of their community.
Sincerely, Teri Neustaedter
LWV Beach Cities, Housing and Homelessness Chair
LWV LA County, Homelessness Task Force
LWV CA, Homelessness Task Force
I absolutely oppose a shelter at aviation park.
We are strongly opposed to building pallet shelter transitional housing on the dirt lot adjacent to Aviation Gym. Aviation Gym, Aviation Field, and RB PAC are all used year-round by families from the community for sporting and arts/culture events, most of which involve children. As a parent of three, I know this first-hand. I'd like to know how you would ensure the safety of those families and their children, not to mention the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods in East Manhattan Beach and North Redondo Beach, both of which also include elementary and middle schools.
I strongly oppose
1.) What happens to Aviation Field and public use? Aviation Field is used by over a dozen or more youth sports clubs each and every day (during non- pandemic times). Thousands of kids are on the field daily into the late evening. Field space is extremely hard to come by for youth sports. Are we, as parents, supposed to send our kids to a practice field next a homeless encampments OR are youth sports losing one of their larger playing fields to this plan? This decision effects they entire South Bay, not just Redondo Beach. This information should be communicated out to all the local residents, El Segundo, etc.
2.) In speaking with several police officers in the last year, they have indicated that RBPD is severely understaffed. Their reason is due to a lack of interest in joining the police force. Where are we getting the police assigned to the 24/7 patrolling of this homeless encampment?
3.). How will you address the issue of increased drug use/selling of drugs in a residential area and across from a daycare center (there is a daycare center next to Trader Joe’s)? 76% of the homeless community are mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs and alcohol (self medicating). This is factual data and these are real concerns. These are encampments, not prisons. This community will come and go as they please.
4.). How will you ensure the safety of all the children that come to Aviation Field and the RB Performing Arts Center for practices, rehearsals and performances?
5.). How will you address the safety of all the residents in North Redondo and East Manhattan?
My family and I just spent our life savings and more to purchase a home near this site. It’s unthinkable that you would establish a homeless camp this close to our neighborhood and willfully place our three children at risk. The claims that this is ‘temporary’ are laughable. Once in place, homeless advocates will assault the city with lawsuits and prevent any effort to uproot them, just as with every other region of LA and Orange County. Inviting homeless into the area will bring crime, drugs and filth. Our only option is to stand up now and block this effort to drag our beautiful city down to the same level as other failing municipalities.
We are strongly opposed to housing any homeless at Aviation Park. We are concerned that "temporary" housing will result in increased transients living in the neighborhood long-term, will increase crime, and will invite those with mental health issues. We live close to the area and take our kids to ride their bikes at the parking lot at the Performing Arts Center. We would stop going if homeless were living there.
I live in NRB and support Option 1, installing the pallet homes. Even without the pandemic and fires/smoke, a housing first approach is the most humane and efficient way to help people become securely housed. Martin vs Boise means that we cannot just push the unhoused around; we need to provide a safe alternative. This is a safe alternative. We should move quickly, while CARE funding is available.
To whom it may concern,
I live in the Fusion complex on Aviation. I have lived there with my family for over 13 years and we have been fortunate to not have much crime. A few things have happened which seemed to be more internal.
From my understanding there are a few homeless camps behind us in the SCE lot. Last I spoke to HPD and was told efforts were being made to clear that out.
Over the years we have had a couple homeless enter the complex and go through the trash. Once we had someone sleep under someone’s steps.
Overall it has been ok.
There are several families in our community.
I am opposed with housing being put so close to our community. I do fear it will bring more crime and more trespassing into our community. Also concerned the value of our property would drop.
I hope that a different location in a area were it is not close to residential will be used instead.
I oppose the plan for the various reasons raised by others in the comments below. Please give fair consideration to the numerous negative impacts that this plan will have on the community, especially given its location near schools, parks and other areas where youth gather year-round.
I think a more global solution needs to be implemented. Will there be healthcare, mental health, drug counseling and additional police resources allocated? Can these resources be guaranteed?
I support the building of the temporary shelter at Aviation Park. I think it’s an area of our city that is relatively far away from homes and businesses, which many residents want. That being said, if there is another location that the council feels would be better, I would be open to that too. Having a shelter is more important than its location. Thank you for all you are doing to try to help our city eradicate homelessness.
I am a local resident and strongly oppose this. This project would adversely effect our local businesses and neighborhoods. More importantly, MB Middle School is blocks away and Aviation Park is used by many children for their team sports. We need to ensure a safe environment for all our children first and foremost.