I think our most vulnerable neighbors should be the priority. A place to rest, commune, and have shelter is essential. Initiatives such as these temporary pallets involve direct action and represent a great option while long-term solutions are considered. An ideal location that no one would ever see and everyone can agree upon isn’t possible because the desire for such is a big part of the problem. We cannot simply avoid harsh realities - these are humans who exist and we have the resources to do better by them. So we should.
While I am in support of solutions to address the homeless, I am against building a homeless shelter on Kingsdale by the Galleria. I think there are many better alternatives for locations that will not impact the residents and businesses in this location.
I am Moses Ramler, my family and I live in District 3 of North Redondo Beach. I am the President of Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club. As an Individual and Representative of Lanakila, I oppose the site Options of Mole B and Seaside Lagoon for transitional shelter housing.
- The first issue is the conflicting interest of the Emergency Helicopter Landing Zone. This concept violates the parameters for that landing zone.
- I believe this placement will violate rules established by the Coastal Commission and CA Coastal Act. There would need to be a permit which is located in a park which requires that use for park space. I don't think this will be acceptable for an approval based on the current land use stipulations.
-The availability for public transportation is limited and not in a central location to give easy, multi directional and largely available transportation.
- Placement of this location will create parking and general congestion. There is only one access and exit way through private property.
- This location will detract from the desirability of a destination location, reducing visitors and economic value.
- Potential for safety issues, due to accessible and unsecured property throughout the Harbor.
- Proximity to hotels, restaurants and business that will be negatively impacted.
Please consider alternate locations to Mole B and Seaside Lagoon. King Harbor is a cornerstone of Redondo Beach, this landmark area will be negatively impacted by adding this type of housing to the center of the Harbor. It is an unreasonable location and our leadership needs to show enough foresight to know the harbor is a terrible location for so many reasons. Please don't waste everyone's time, these locations will be fought very hard and at every commission.
The Kingsdale Site is a very viable location and has much less impact to high traffic ocean and recreational use areas. There may be added cost short term, however long term will benefit the rest of the city and community.
Perhaps commercial space like the vacant Nordstroms.
Aviation Gym is more suitable, but even this location will be tough to be agreeable this idea.
Thank You!
My best friend, as close as a sister who is also a wonderful mother of 3 (one down syndrome), has been homeless for over 5 years due to drugs after a back injury. She has survived by stealing and manipulating innocent people. She has had people offer her housing, a job and a new beginning MANY TIMES. Every situation is different but I wouldn't even want my best of friends in this situation be near my children or community. I don't want to compare the homeless to prisoners but if you think about it...there are innocent prisoners just as there are innocent homeless people. I support helping the homeless and pray every day my best friend seeks this type of help but drug addicts take what they can take. This doesn't meant stop your mission and I personally would help find a way. There are better ways to offer this opportunity that do not affect everyone in a small community. There are recovery centers the city can partner with that already have the ground work and program to help those in need who will most likely take these funds and help expand their programs. There are also abandoned facilities inland or not in family commuinties that would take the funds. There are so many other creative ways to help. Beach front property in a family community is not the place. I wouldn't be surprised if homelessness increases knowing the real estate they are offered.
My husband and I are boatowners; we have a boat at Port Royal. This harbor area is a tourist destination and a revenue generator for the city. It is also an area for family recreation. I don't think that this is the smartest way to go; even though you say it is 'temporary'; no one leaves a beachfront property, this would not be temporary.
You can't just "put them somewhere" and 'store' the homeless. You need programs, social, and mental health support. You need to offer them more than just a place to 'be.'
They have moved the homeless in New York City into many of the hotels, driving away residents. Homeless people are now just wandering the streets. And they will do that here at the harbor.
Why do you want to put homeless people along the waterfront, where real estate is at a premium? Shouldn't you propose to move this somewhere else, not at the waterfront the diamond of Redondo?
Ideally, you want to put the homeless population into a less expensive area, and pay for it with revenue from a more expensive area.
I support the Pallet houses. These are human beings and it is inhumane and our duty to house them during this pandemic. Shame on the NIMBY'S who think this is a bad idea. We need to decriminalize being homeless AND provide for these people during a time when sickness and death can be avoided. Imagine if it were you or a family member that suddenly found themselves homeless. It's not inconceivable when one hospital visit or cancer diagnosis could put you in dire financial straights. It's our responsibility as humans to look out for each other.
Please reject Moonstone Park and the Seaside Lagoon, as potential sites for homeless shelters.
Mole B and the Seaside Lagoon are on State Tidelands and we have an obligation to encourage low-cost recreational boating. The Outrigger Clubs have provided that recreation for almost 50 years. It would be highly detrimental to their activities to place shelters adjacent to them. The shelters would also negatively impact the numerous slip tenants.
The City has an easement with the Marina, which only grants the right to operate a small boat hoist, city docks, and a pedestrian ramp. Homeless shelters are not consistent with that easement.
The breakwater is an attractive nuisance, where folks are injured and even killed by unexpected waves. There is also well-known drug activity. The homeless shelters would lead to increased injuries and drug use.
During larger storms, an evacuation plan will be needed with alternative housing.
The harbor is often under the marine layer. A location even slightly more inland would provide better weather. The marine weather would encourage congregation inside the shelters, facilitating the spread of COVID-19.
Although not part of their responsibilities, the Harbor Patrol would inevitably assist with issues at the shelters, distracting them from their primary life saving duties.
The Waterfront is our crown jewel in attracting tourism. After years of investment in our community by our hotels, it would be both financially foolish and disrespectful, to site shelters adjacent to our visitor-serving businesses.
There is a Master Plan and funding for enhanced boating facilities on Mole B. When the City becomes otherwise ready to move forward on that plan, it would be a shame if the shelters inhibited that progress.
There are renewed discussions to coordinate a boat ramp with a new sports fishing pier and the Seaside Lagoon. It would be a shame if the shelters inhibited that progress.
The City Council should utilize the expertise of the Harbor Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission before solidifying any decisions.
I am fine with wherever you want to place the temporary housing for Redondo's unhoused population. They need a place to go. We should be more understanding, ESPECIALLY since there are more unhoused folks due to Covid. I am in 100% support of this and I live in South Redondo.
Why are we equating humane treatment of the homeless with the privilege of beach living quarters? We are confusing humane treatment with only giving how/what others "want" versus what is NEEDED – basic human rights to food, water, shelter. It is NOT necessary to live at the beach. It’s not even necessary to live in Redondo. It’s only necessary to live. And it should be at the most cost-effective location possible. Aviation park is not that. Near the Galleria is not that. At Seaside Lagoon, the beach and Moonstone Park is not that. Where there’s lots of space and infrastructure is growing in places like Kern County, Palmdale and Lancaster IS THAT. Property out there is much cheaper AND at way less of a premium. Redondo already has epically failed our local businesses (at the Pier AND in our town, at large) and continues to find new and unique ways to deprive our city of any revenue. This is only going to further this - people already have hardly a reason to go down to the beach or visit the pier area - now you want to compound that? I didn’t even touch on the fact that our children can’t afford to live here – in apartments, much less buy real estate - even after going to college and getting a degree, yet our city council is prepared to simply give away ocean views, prime square footage and our tax dollars at a hefty cost (think the last time I checked it worked out to be somewhere between $8K - $11K per homeless person). I’m not unsympathetic to the homeless but it’s not a “lack of housing” problem – it’s a "lack of services, lack of treatment, and lack of addressing mental health and addiction and not enforcing rules, laws or common sense" problem. Until everyone makes the really hard choices of actually ensuring homeless people attend mandatory addiction treatment, or that they must get mental health help and REQUIRE them to stop doing drugs or abusing alcohol and require them to abide by actual rules and laws that you or I would be arrested for breaking, this problem is never going to be solved, no matter how many houses you give away for free by the sea.
NO to building a homeless shelter in Kingsdale by the Galleria. If the general consensus is no at any given location and there is no agreement that everyone in the city is okay with, why are you still moving through with this? You serve and represent us- we're telling you our thoughts and your current plan DOESN'T work. Listen to the people in the comments and reconsider. So many businesses in the one area and building a homeless shelter is not good.
The city slogan is "More to Sea" - public access to the waterfront areas should not be disrupted. Please remove Mole B and Seaside Lagoon from consideration. Homeless housing is important, but a site like Kingsdale is better suited - closer to transit and services.
My husband and I are boatowners; we have a boat at Port Royal. This harbor area is a tourist destination and a revenue generator for the city. It is also an area for family recreation. I don't think that this is the smartest way to go; even though you say it is 'temporary'; no one leaves a beachfront property, this would not be temporary.
You can't just "put them somewhere" and 'store' the homeless. You need programs, social, and mental health support. You need to offer them more than just a place to 'be.'
They have moved the homeless in New York City into many of the hotels, driving away residents. Homeless people are now just wandering the streets. And they will do that here at the harbor.
Why do you want to put homeless people along the waterfront, where real estate is at a premium? Shouldn't you propose to move this somewhere else, not at the waterfront the diamond of Redondo?
Ideally, you want to put the homeless population into a less expensive area, and pay for it with revenue from a more expensive area.
Homelessness is an unfortunate and important issue that Los Angeles communities have faced for decades. One of the many difficulties a homeless person faces is access to services including medical, mental health, and unemployment help (See "How to Increase Homelessness" by Joel John Roberts, CEO of People Assisting the Homeless). By placing a homeless shelter in Redondo Marina we are putting them further from vital services and expecting people who may already suffer from mental health issues in a position where they would need to string together a series of logistical nightmares in order to get to appointments and offices. Also, as someone who works downtown less than a mile from Skid Row I can personally state there are massive security issues that arise when a large homeless population is present. It was not if but when your car would be broken into, you would be accosted, or you would see needles among other garbage items strewn across the street. I understand this is a complex problem but I urge you to reconsider your choice in placement of the shelter. Thank you for your time.
Mole B or anywhere in King Harbor is not a good location for the Redondo Beach Homeless Shelter. I can already see how the News Crews would love to flock to the sight so they can get live video of the Redondo Beach Homeless Shelter being battered by Winter Storm Waves coming over the Breakwall. Yes it can happen because it has happened. There are photos of the very large mooring buoys being torn from the anchors and washed onto the driveway to the Harbor Patrol Office and onto the lawn at Moonstone Park/Mole B. How would you like to see that PR for Redondo Beach's Homeless Shelter?
Please do NOT build a homeless shelter near Kingsdale by the Galleria mall. I agree with many people who are stating how it is a very BAD idea to build a homeless shelter near the most important business area in the city. There are so many stores in the area. So many kids and families come here so a homeless shelter is NOT a good idea.
I think it is a very BAD idea to build a homeless shelter near the Galleria mall on Kingsdale. We have ONE mall in the city, arguably the cities main attraction from people living here and in neighboring cities. So why would you build a homeless shelter near the cities ONLY MALL???? The mall is next to Target, Panera Bread, a bank, etc so many businesses so I don't know WHO thinks a homeless shelter near 50+ businesses is a GOOD IDEA???
Council Members: Well planned and community supported homeless housing is needed in the city. I strongly oppose placing housing in in a family oriented recreational area such as Moonstone and Seaside Lagoon. While the startup costs are relatively low, the real long-terms costs will be higher than other proposed sites. This will result from decreased quality of life at the beach and decreased tax dollars from locals and visitors who will avoid the area after the first negative experience they have or see reported.
Our City does not need any “pallet temporary emergency transitional housing shelters” and it appears from City Attorney’s Administrative Report that the City Council is now rushing to make this decision asap because it is seeking funds from the CARES Act to cover some of the expenses and eligibility guidelines allow for expenses associated with “caring for homeless” during the pandemic period as defined as March 1, 2020 through December 30, 2020. The City council should not rush into making such a big decision that will cause a long term negative impact on the residents and businesses.
The locations being considered are also unacceptable, especially the waterfront locations at Moonstone Park and Seaside Lagoon. Building one in Moonstone Park will mean the city will displace the much needed emergency landing location for the Coast Guard and Sheriff’s helicopters. It is also a popular park on the waterfront where families, boat owners and water sport enthusiasts, including the canoe clubs’ members, often spend their time. Similarly, Seaside Lagoon is in a prime marina location next to several popular hotels and restaurants. The city council needs to consider the negative impact a homeless shelter, even if the city calls it “temporary”, will have on the local marina hotels, restaurants and businesses that are still trying to recover from the covid shutdown regulations. Building a homeless shelter next to these businesses will cause locals and tourists to not visit these businesses and could result in more local businesses closing their doors. There are also many residents that live in and around the marina. The City Council will need to provide 24 hour staff and security around the areas where they build a homeless shelter. Please reconsider if any of these proposed pallet shelters are needed in our city.
I strongly support your temporary housing endeavor. Having toured many types of housing for the unsheltered, I know our SPA 8 outreach services will manage the site and take care of our neighbors' needs until more stable housing can be found. From the comments it seems that there is concern about criminal activity. The diagrams of the sites appear to lessen the likelihood of this type of activity, as will the rules of being a resident.
Redondo Beach, I applaud your energy and effort in making these temporary pallet homes a reality. As you know, shelter for the unhoused is maxed out -- this initiative provides a good result for all.
Teri Neustaedter
League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities, Housing and Homelessness Chair
LWV LA County Homelessness Task Force
LWV California Homelessness TaskForce
I think our most vulnerable neighbors should be the priority. A place to rest, commune, and have shelter is essential. Initiatives such as these temporary pallets involve direct action and represent a great option while long-term solutions are considered. An ideal location that no one would ever see and everyone can agree upon isn’t possible because the desire for such is a big part of the problem. We cannot simply avoid harsh realities - these are humans who exist and we have the resources to do better by them. So we should.
While I am in support of solutions to address the homeless, I am against building a homeless shelter on Kingsdale by the Galleria. I think there are many better alternatives for locations that will not impact the residents and businesses in this location.
I am Moses Ramler, my family and I live in District 3 of North Redondo Beach. I am the President of Lanakila Outrigger Canoe Club. As an Individual and Representative of Lanakila, I oppose the site Options of Mole B and Seaside Lagoon for transitional shelter housing.
- The first issue is the conflicting interest of the Emergency Helicopter Landing Zone. This concept violates the parameters for that landing zone.
- I believe this placement will violate rules established by the Coastal Commission and CA Coastal Act. There would need to be a permit which is located in a park which requires that use for park space. I don't think this will be acceptable for an approval based on the current land use stipulations.
-The availability for public transportation is limited and not in a central location to give easy, multi directional and largely available transportation.
- Placement of this location will create parking and general congestion. There is only one access and exit way through private property.
- This location will detract from the desirability of a destination location, reducing visitors and economic value.
- Potential for safety issues, due to accessible and unsecured property throughout the Harbor.
- Proximity to hotels, restaurants and business that will be negatively impacted.
Please consider alternate locations to Mole B and Seaside Lagoon. King Harbor is a cornerstone of Redondo Beach, this landmark area will be negatively impacted by adding this type of housing to the center of the Harbor. It is an unreasonable location and our leadership needs to show enough foresight to know the harbor is a terrible location for so many reasons. Please don't waste everyone's time, these locations will be fought very hard and at every commission.
The Kingsdale Site is a very viable location and has much less impact to high traffic ocean and recreational use areas. There may be added cost short term, however long term will benefit the rest of the city and community.
Perhaps commercial space like the vacant Nordstroms.
Aviation Gym is more suitable, but even this location will be tough to be agreeable this idea.
Thank You!
My best friend, as close as a sister who is also a wonderful mother of 3 (one down syndrome), has been homeless for over 5 years due to drugs after a back injury. She has survived by stealing and manipulating innocent people. She has had people offer her housing, a job and a new beginning MANY TIMES. Every situation is different but I wouldn't even want my best of friends in this situation be near my children or community. I don't want to compare the homeless to prisoners but if you think about it...there are innocent prisoners just as there are innocent homeless people. I support helping the homeless and pray every day my best friend seeks this type of help but drug addicts take what they can take. This doesn't meant stop your mission and I personally would help find a way. There are better ways to offer this opportunity that do not affect everyone in a small community. There are recovery centers the city can partner with that already have the ground work and program to help those in need who will most likely take these funds and help expand their programs. There are also abandoned facilities inland or not in family commuinties that would take the funds. There are so many other creative ways to help. Beach front property in a family community is not the place. I wouldn't be surprised if homelessness increases knowing the real estate they are offered.
My husband and I are boatowners; we have a boat at Port Royal. This harbor area is a tourist destination and a revenue generator for the city. It is also an area for family recreation. I don't think that this is the smartest way to go; even though you say it is 'temporary'; no one leaves a beachfront property, this would not be temporary.
You can't just "put them somewhere" and 'store' the homeless. You need programs, social, and mental health support. You need to offer them more than just a place to 'be.'
They have moved the homeless in New York City into many of the hotels, driving away residents. Homeless people are now just wandering the streets. And they will do that here at the harbor.
Why do you want to put homeless people along the waterfront, where real estate is at a premium? Shouldn't you propose to move this somewhere else, not at the waterfront the diamond of Redondo?
Ideally, you want to put the homeless population into a less expensive area, and pay for it with revenue from a more expensive area.
I support the Pallet houses. These are human beings and it is inhumane and our duty to house them during this pandemic. Shame on the NIMBY'S who think this is a bad idea. We need to decriminalize being homeless AND provide for these people during a time when sickness and death can be avoided. Imagine if it were you or a family member that suddenly found themselves homeless. It's not inconceivable when one hospital visit or cancer diagnosis could put you in dire financial straights. It's our responsibility as humans to look out for each other.
Please reject Moonstone Park and the Seaside Lagoon, as potential sites for homeless shelters.
Mole B and the Seaside Lagoon are on State Tidelands and we have an obligation to encourage low-cost recreational boating. The Outrigger Clubs have provided that recreation for almost 50 years. It would be highly detrimental to their activities to place shelters adjacent to them. The shelters would also negatively impact the numerous slip tenants.
The City has an easement with the Marina, which only grants the right to operate a small boat hoist, city docks, and a pedestrian ramp. Homeless shelters are not consistent with that easement.
The breakwater is an attractive nuisance, where folks are injured and even killed by unexpected waves. There is also well-known drug activity. The homeless shelters would lead to increased injuries and drug use.
During larger storms, an evacuation plan will be needed with alternative housing.
The harbor is often under the marine layer. A location even slightly more inland would provide better weather. The marine weather would encourage congregation inside the shelters, facilitating the spread of COVID-19.
Although not part of their responsibilities, the Harbor Patrol would inevitably assist with issues at the shelters, distracting them from their primary life saving duties.
The Waterfront is our crown jewel in attracting tourism. After years of investment in our community by our hotels, it would be both financially foolish and disrespectful, to site shelters adjacent to our visitor-serving businesses.
There is a Master Plan and funding for enhanced boating facilities on Mole B. When the City becomes otherwise ready to move forward on that plan, it would be a shame if the shelters inhibited that progress.
There are renewed discussions to coordinate a boat ramp with a new sports fishing pier and the Seaside Lagoon. It would be a shame if the shelters inhibited that progress.
The City Council should utilize the expertise of the Harbor Commission and the Recreation and Parks Commission before solidifying any decisions.
I am fine with wherever you want to place the temporary housing for Redondo's unhoused population. They need a place to go. We should be more understanding, ESPECIALLY since there are more unhoused folks due to Covid. I am in 100% support of this and I live in South Redondo.
Kim Isaacs
Why are we equating humane treatment of the homeless with the privilege of beach living quarters? We are confusing humane treatment with only giving how/what others "want" versus what is NEEDED – basic human rights to food, water, shelter. It is NOT necessary to live at the beach. It’s not even necessary to live in Redondo. It’s only necessary to live. And it should be at the most cost-effective location possible. Aviation park is not that. Near the Galleria is not that. At Seaside Lagoon, the beach and Moonstone Park is not that. Where there’s lots of space and infrastructure is growing in places like Kern County, Palmdale and Lancaster IS THAT. Property out there is much cheaper AND at way less of a premium. Redondo already has epically failed our local businesses (at the Pier AND in our town, at large) and continues to find new and unique ways to deprive our city of any revenue. This is only going to further this - people already have hardly a reason to go down to the beach or visit the pier area - now you want to compound that? I didn’t even touch on the fact that our children can’t afford to live here – in apartments, much less buy real estate - even after going to college and getting a degree, yet our city council is prepared to simply give away ocean views, prime square footage and our tax dollars at a hefty cost (think the last time I checked it worked out to be somewhere between $8K - $11K per homeless person). I’m not unsympathetic to the homeless but it’s not a “lack of housing” problem – it’s a "lack of services, lack of treatment, and lack of addressing mental health and addiction and not enforcing rules, laws or common sense" problem. Until everyone makes the really hard choices of actually ensuring homeless people attend mandatory addiction treatment, or that they must get mental health help and REQUIRE them to stop doing drugs or abusing alcohol and require them to abide by actual rules and laws that you or I would be arrested for breaking, this problem is never going to be solved, no matter how many houses you give away for free by the sea.
NO to building a homeless shelter in Kingsdale by the Galleria. If the general consensus is no at any given location and there is no agreement that everyone in the city is okay with, why are you still moving through with this? You serve and represent us- we're telling you our thoughts and your current plan DOESN'T work. Listen to the people in the comments and reconsider. So many businesses in the one area and building a homeless shelter is not good.
The city slogan is "More to Sea" - public access to the waterfront areas should not be disrupted. Please remove Mole B and Seaside Lagoon from consideration. Homeless housing is important, but a site like Kingsdale is better suited - closer to transit and services.
My husband and I are boatowners; we have a boat at Port Royal. This harbor area is a tourist destination and a revenue generator for the city. It is also an area for family recreation. I don't think that this is the smartest way to go; even though you say it is 'temporary'; no one leaves a beachfront property, this would not be temporary.
You can't just "put them somewhere" and 'store' the homeless. You need programs, social, and mental health support. You need to offer them more than just a place to 'be.'
They have moved the homeless in New York City into many of the hotels, driving away residents. Homeless people are now just wandering the streets. And they will do that here at the harbor.
Why do you want to put homeless people along the waterfront, where real estate is at a premium? Shouldn't you propose to move this somewhere else, not at the waterfront the diamond of Redondo?
Ideally, you want to put the homeless population into a less expensive area, and pay for it with revenue from a more expensive area.
Homelessness is an unfortunate and important issue that Los Angeles communities have faced for decades. One of the many difficulties a homeless person faces is access to services including medical, mental health, and unemployment help (See "How to Increase Homelessness" by Joel John Roberts, CEO of People Assisting the Homeless). By placing a homeless shelter in Redondo Marina we are putting them further from vital services and expecting people who may already suffer from mental health issues in a position where they would need to string together a series of logistical nightmares in order to get to appointments and offices. Also, as someone who works downtown less than a mile from Skid Row I can personally state there are massive security issues that arise when a large homeless population is present. It was not if but when your car would be broken into, you would be accosted, or you would see needles among other garbage items strewn across the street. I understand this is a complex problem but I urge you to reconsider your choice in placement of the shelter. Thank you for your time.
Mole B or anywhere in King Harbor is not a good location for the Redondo Beach Homeless Shelter. I can already see how the News Crews would love to flock to the sight so they can get live video of the Redondo Beach Homeless Shelter being battered by Winter Storm Waves coming over the Breakwall. Yes it can happen because it has happened. There are photos of the very large mooring buoys being torn from the anchors and washed onto the driveway to the Harbor Patrol Office and onto the lawn at Moonstone Park/Mole B. How would you like to see that PR for Redondo Beach's Homeless Shelter?
Please do NOT build a homeless shelter near Kingsdale by the Galleria mall. I agree with many people who are stating how it is a very BAD idea to build a homeless shelter near the most important business area in the city. There are so many stores in the area. So many kids and families come here so a homeless shelter is NOT a good idea.
I think it is a very BAD idea to build a homeless shelter near the Galleria mall on Kingsdale. We have ONE mall in the city, arguably the cities main attraction from people living here and in neighboring cities. So why would you build a homeless shelter near the cities ONLY MALL???? The mall is next to Target, Panera Bread, a bank, etc so many businesses so I don't know WHO thinks a homeless shelter near 50+ businesses is a GOOD IDEA???
Council Members: Well planned and community supported homeless housing is needed in the city. I strongly oppose placing housing in in a family oriented recreational area such as Moonstone and Seaside Lagoon. While the startup costs are relatively low, the real long-terms costs will be higher than other proposed sites. This will result from decreased quality of life at the beach and decreased tax dollars from locals and visitors who will avoid the area after the first negative experience they have or see reported.
Our City does not need any “pallet temporary emergency transitional housing shelters” and it appears from City Attorney’s Administrative Report that the City Council is now rushing to make this decision asap because it is seeking funds from the CARES Act to cover some of the expenses and eligibility guidelines allow for expenses associated with “caring for homeless” during the pandemic period as defined as March 1, 2020 through December 30, 2020. The City council should not rush into making such a big decision that will cause a long term negative impact on the residents and businesses.
The locations being considered are also unacceptable, especially the waterfront locations at Moonstone Park and Seaside Lagoon. Building one in Moonstone Park will mean the city will displace the much needed emergency landing location for the Coast Guard and Sheriff’s helicopters. It is also a popular park on the waterfront where families, boat owners and water sport enthusiasts, including the canoe clubs’ members, often spend their time. Similarly, Seaside Lagoon is in a prime marina location next to several popular hotels and restaurants. The city council needs to consider the negative impact a homeless shelter, even if the city calls it “temporary”, will have on the local marina hotels, restaurants and businesses that are still trying to recover from the covid shutdown regulations. Building a homeless shelter next to these businesses will cause locals and tourists to not visit these businesses and could result in more local businesses closing their doors. There are also many residents that live in and around the marina. The City Council will need to provide 24 hour staff and security around the areas where they build a homeless shelter. Please reconsider if any of these proposed pallet shelters are needed in our city.
As a RUHS student we are already very limited on safe places to be. please do not choose moonstone park /mole b as a shelter location.
as a member of lanakila we spend most of our time there. We have already seen in covid times vandalism and trash in the area.
Please do not take moonstone from us.
Thank you
I strongly support your temporary housing endeavor. Having toured many types of housing for the unsheltered, I know our SPA 8 outreach services will manage the site and take care of our neighbors' needs until more stable housing can be found. From the comments it seems that there is concern about criminal activity. The diagrams of the sites appear to lessen the likelihood of this type of activity, as will the rules of being a resident.
Redondo Beach, I applaud your energy and effort in making these temporary pallet homes a reality. As you know, shelter for the unhoused is maxed out -- this initiative provides a good result for all.
Teri Neustaedter
League of Women Voters of the Beach Cities, Housing and Homelessness Chair
LWV LA County Homelessness Task Force
LWV California Homelessness TaskForce