I support the development of Pallet housing at Moonstone Park for the unhoused in Redondo Beach. This is the obvious choice from the cost/benefit perspective. I also support other South Redondo locations.
I oppose the Moonstone location. It's literally on the rocks in a super cold spot as we head into winter. Sure, it's cheap, but it also seems pretty cruel to put homeless folks right in that weather. Limited parking, far from public transport. If it's going to be the harbor, Seaside Lagoon is a better option. Way more parking. Aviation is the best option. Yes, it's the most expensive, but furtherest from residential, not on the literal rocks of the ocean.
I oppose building homeless encampments in our city. When the city says “temporary” they really mean permanent housing units with temporary and ever changing transients.
We have so many homeless in Redondo Beach because the surrounding cities are contributing to our churches that feed and offer other free services to them. Instead of taking care of their share of the homeless they are using us as a dumping ground for the homeless.
How are 30 units going to take care of Redondo’s homeless problems? What about the other 100 or so that are still camping out on our streets? Are we going to build another 100 units? Having free housing, food and services will only draw more homeless to Redondo Beach.
Indeed, some homeless folks are unfortunate women and children, but many are mentally unstable and need medical attention. I have 2 personal incidents of being followed by an unstable person eating at one of the churches. Redondo Beach is already the ugly stepsister of the beach cities. We should not have homeless shelters where children should be playing and elders should be walking. Recreational areas and beach tourism help support our city and benefit the taxpayers. These areas are not only inappropriate for homeless shelters but will merely attract more homeless to the area. We must deal with the Boise decision in a manner that is fair to the taxpayers who have worked hard to purchase their home in a safe neighborhood and should be able to keep it that way.
Strongly oppose the plan to build homeless housing at Moonstone park and Seaside lagoon. First concern is for safety- repurposing would remove helicopter access for emergency services. These sites are also very exposed to the elements during frequent winter storms and are literally on the rocks. Secondly makes no sense from a financial perspective to use million dollar property for such a use. Typically a cost benefit analysis would be included in a decision matrix- not just a cost of repurposing, which has given a misleading perspective here as this area brings in tourist dollars to the city. Thirdly these two sites are of great benefit to the city residents and enable beach and water access. From what I remember, the California Coastal commission is not happy we do not have more water access so reducing access does not sound like a sound plan. While Redondo is quite built out, I believe that other sites can be found, i.e. the South Bay Gardens Nursery is closing (2501 Manhattan Beach Blvd) and it is near a lot of industrial space and public transit.
I support the work that Redondo Beach has put into this program. As for location, it appears to me that the Francisca/Gertruda space is the most logical, given it is not in immediate proximity to a school or places where families gather. I would hope that the administrators have investigated problems that have occurred in other such projects, and plan for preventative measures. We have to start somewhere!
I am strongly opposed to homeless housing on Mole B (oceanfront property), Seaside Lagoon (oceanfront property) and the Aviation Gym parking lot.
I understand there are two possible sites on the east side of the city, which are far preferable to the harbor for obvious recreational and visitor reasons.
NO TO KINGSDALE LOCATION! Location is just feet away from residential street, a mall (say good bye to any sort of re-development by owners of Galleria), a park where CHILDREN play. This is going to decrease all home values in the area. Move it somewhere far away from any sort of residential neighborhood. If that is not possible as Redondo is pretty much ALL residential, move the location around from district to district. Even if it costs more, it is fair and not one district is taking the burden.
Moonstone Park is also a "landing zone" for helicopters used to evacuate critical patients. This is used by the fire department/harbor patrol and LACO lifeguards.
I am strongly opposed to homeless housing on Mole B (oceanfront property), Seaside Lagoon (oceanfront property) and the Aviation Gym parking lot. These sites are very popular with individuals and families for healthy outdoor recreation and attract visitors to Redondo Beach that support local businesses.
I am strongly opposed to homeless housing on Mole B (oceanfront property), Seaside Lagoon (oceanfront property) and the Aviation Gym parking lot. These sites are very popular with individuals and families for healthy outdoor recreation and attract visitors to Redondo Beach that support local businesses.
I oppose this location. We frequently walk the area and I would not feel safe with my children. The shelter will overpopulate in a short amount of time and our friendly neighborhood will become 'unsafe'. Highly oppose!
The proposed location is way too close to residential neighborhoods and should not go forward. I echo the sentiments set forth in another comment -- that the funds allocated for homeless shelters should be pooled together for the St. Vincent's Hospital site downtown.
The city should find a solution outside or Put this shelter at PCH and 190th. There is plenty of open space there and no public track, gym, entertainment center, daycare, and few businesses.
I absolutely support this as housing should be a basic human right. I’m disappointed at the distancing language that people who oppose use. These are human beings that deserve a chance to get back on their feet. This won’t “attract homeless people”, this will protect someone’s child, someone’s sibling, someone’s parent until they can get back on their own feet. How far have we fallen that we turn our noses from those who need our help the most. Not everyone has family with financial means to help when we fall on hard times. Yes there will be a few that “choose” to be homeless, but these are the great minority. People want to be productive & provide for themselves, I watch people throw out food while others starve & scramble to pick up what others threw in the trash. These are people who deserve a safe place to rest, food in their stomach, & a chance to turn it around.
Building a shelter will attract additional homeless from neighboring cities and will quickly become overpopulated. These folks will spill over into neighborhoods and become a nuisance. The homeless camp type of solution has been proven to be a mistake in every city in which it has been attempted. The only solution is state and federally funded large-scale mental hospitals and drug/alcohol treatment facilities. These will be very expensive, and as such need to be built in areas where land is the least expensive. Also, the scope of such an undertaking is much too high for a small city to handle. What should be done instead is enrolling homeless into available programs on the county and state level for drug/alcohol/mental health treatment. The Boise ruling should not be used as an excuse to do nothing via law enforcement. That narrow ruling only has to do with enforcement of anti-camping ordinances, it does not apply to arrest and prosecution of other crimes such as littering, drug possession, drunk and disorderly, defecating in public, vandalism, trespassing etc. These crimes can be used to forcibly remove folks from the streets in order to be humanely enrolled in such programs via diversion programs in place.
This seems like a an ill thought out mandate, it would be more sensible to question the mandate and find areas that are already better serving the homeless so they get the quality of care they need. Putting homeless shelters in random places does nothing but exponentially expand the operational cost and disservice to the folks who actually need the quality of care.
I support the development of Pallet housing at Moonstone Park for the unhoused in Redondo Beach. This is the obvious choice from the cost/benefit perspective. I also support other South Redondo locations.
I oppose the Moonstone location. It's literally on the rocks in a super cold spot as we head into winter. Sure, it's cheap, but it also seems pretty cruel to put homeless folks right in that weather. Limited parking, far from public transport. If it's going to be the harbor, Seaside Lagoon is a better option. Way more parking. Aviation is the best option. Yes, it's the most expensive, but furtherest from residential, not on the literal rocks of the ocean.
I oppose building homeless encampments in our city. When the city says “temporary” they really mean permanent housing units with temporary and ever changing transients.
We have so many homeless in Redondo Beach because the surrounding cities are contributing to our churches that feed and offer other free services to them. Instead of taking care of their share of the homeless they are using us as a dumping ground for the homeless.
How are 30 units going to take care of Redondo’s homeless problems? What about the other 100 or so that are still camping out on our streets? Are we going to build another 100 units? Having free housing, food and services will only draw more homeless to Redondo Beach.
Indeed, some homeless folks are unfortunate women and children, but many are mentally unstable and need medical attention. I have 2 personal incidents of being followed by an unstable person eating at one of the churches. Redondo Beach is already the ugly stepsister of the beach cities. We should not have homeless shelters where children should be playing and elders should be walking. Recreational areas and beach tourism help support our city and benefit the taxpayers. These areas are not only inappropriate for homeless shelters but will merely attract more homeless to the area. We must deal with the Boise decision in a manner that is fair to the taxpayers who have worked hard to purchase their home in a safe neighborhood and should be able to keep it that way.
Strongly oppose the plan to build homeless housing at Moonstone park and Seaside lagoon. First concern is for safety- repurposing would remove helicopter access for emergency services. These sites are also very exposed to the elements during frequent winter storms and are literally on the rocks. Secondly makes no sense from a financial perspective to use million dollar property for such a use. Typically a cost benefit analysis would be included in a decision matrix- not just a cost of repurposing, which has given a misleading perspective here as this area brings in tourist dollars to the city. Thirdly these two sites are of great benefit to the city residents and enable beach and water access. From what I remember, the California Coastal commission is not happy we do not have more water access so reducing access does not sound like a sound plan. While Redondo is quite built out, I believe that other sites can be found, i.e. the South Bay Gardens Nursery is closing (2501 Manhattan Beach Blvd) and it is near a lot of industrial space and public transit.
I support the work that Redondo Beach has put into this program. As for location, it appears to me that the Francisca/Gertruda space is the most logical, given it is not in immediate proximity to a school or places where families gather. I would hope that the administrators have investigated problems that have occurred in other such projects, and plan for preventative measures. We have to start somewhere!
I am strongly opposed to homeless housing on Mole B (oceanfront property), Seaside Lagoon (oceanfront property) and the Aviation Gym parking lot.
I understand there are two possible sites on the east side of the city, which are far preferable to the harbor for obvious recreational and visitor reasons.
NO TO KINGSDALE LOCATION! Location is just feet away from residential street, a mall (say good bye to any sort of re-development by owners of Galleria), a park where CHILDREN play. This is going to decrease all home values in the area. Move it somewhere far away from any sort of residential neighborhood. If that is not possible as Redondo is pretty much ALL residential, move the location around from district to district. Even if it costs more, it is fair and not one district is taking the burden.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE KINGSDALE LOCATION! It is too close to residential neighborhoods and parks!
Moonstone Park is also a "landing zone" for helicopters used to evacuate critical patients. This is used by the fire department/harbor patrol and LACO lifeguards.
I am strongly opposed to homeless housing on Mole B (oceanfront property), Seaside Lagoon (oceanfront property) and the Aviation Gym parking lot. These sites are very popular with individuals and families for healthy outdoor recreation and attract visitors to Redondo Beach that support local businesses.
I am strongly opposed to homeless housing on Mole B (oceanfront property), Seaside Lagoon (oceanfront property) and the Aviation Gym parking lot. These sites are very popular with individuals and families for healthy outdoor recreation and attract visitors to Redondo Beach that support local businesses.
I oppose the location on kingsdale in North Redondo as it’s too close to schools and parks where there will be children
I oppose this location. We frequently walk the area and I would not feel safe with my children. The shelter will overpopulate in a short amount of time and our friendly neighborhood will become 'unsafe'. Highly oppose!
The proposed location is way too close to residential neighborhoods and should not go forward. I echo the sentiments set forth in another comment -- that the funds allocated for homeless shelters should be pooled together for the St. Vincent's Hospital site downtown.
The city should find a solution outside or Put this shelter at PCH and 190th. There is plenty of open space there and no public track, gym, entertainment center, daycare, and few businesses.
I absolutely support this as housing should be a basic human right. I’m disappointed at the distancing language that people who oppose use. These are human beings that deserve a chance to get back on their feet. This won’t “attract homeless people”, this will protect someone’s child, someone’s sibling, someone’s parent until they can get back on their own feet. How far have we fallen that we turn our noses from those who need our help the most. Not everyone has family with financial means to help when we fall on hard times. Yes there will be a few that “choose” to be homeless, but these are the great minority. People want to be productive & provide for themselves, I watch people throw out food while others starve & scramble to pick up what others threw in the trash. These are people who deserve a safe place to rest, food in their stomach, & a chance to turn it around.
Building a shelter will attract additional homeless from neighboring cities and will quickly become overpopulated. These folks will spill over into neighborhoods and become a nuisance. The homeless camp type of solution has been proven to be a mistake in every city in which it has been attempted. The only solution is state and federally funded large-scale mental hospitals and drug/alcohol treatment facilities. These will be very expensive, and as such need to be built in areas where land is the least expensive. Also, the scope of such an undertaking is much too high for a small city to handle. What should be done instead is enrolling homeless into available programs on the county and state level for drug/alcohol/mental health treatment. The Boise ruling should not be used as an excuse to do nothing via law enforcement. That narrow ruling only has to do with enforcement of anti-camping ordinances, it does not apply to arrest and prosecution of other crimes such as littering, drug possession, drunk and disorderly, defecating in public, vandalism, trespassing etc. These crimes can be used to forcibly remove folks from the streets in order to be humanely enrolled in such programs via diversion programs in place.
This seems like a an ill thought out mandate, it would be more sensible to question the mandate and find areas that are already better serving the homeless so they get the quality of care they need. Putting homeless shelters in random places does nothing but exponentially expand the operational cost and disservice to the folks who actually need the quality of care.
This is way too close to schools and families to have a homeless shelter.