Measure H is collecting $300-400 million for the homeless each year for 10 years, and what do we have to show for it-- sprinkling the homeless into EVERY residential community large and small throughout the County? Totally wrong approach.
Take that money and move them into the recently vacated St. Vincent's Hospital downtown. The schizophrenics and other mentally disturbed homeless would be best served in such a setting, not in and around our local streets, parks, and gyms. I just saw a homeless woman squatting and defecating at the corner of Aviation and Rosecrans last week. How well has this been working out for San Francisco? Let's use some common sense here.
Thank you for planning on building this shelter. It is important that as a city we are able to enforce our camping ordinances and this will help accomplish this. I am not in favor of the Seaside Lagoon site because of the tourist draw that the area is, along with the marina. I think the other sites are better suited to a shelter location.
I oppose the location on kingsdale in North Redondo as it’s too close to schools and parks where there will be children. I understand there is a need but not so close to homes and families.
Aviation park does not have within walking distance a pharmacy or grocery stores other than trader joes. How are they going to get the things they need on a daily basis? Places need to be well thought out.
I've heard a lot of horrible things about the Venice pallet program, how will this be different?
I say "opposed" but I could be neutral if I really understood how this was going to work and how you will make sure people in the neighborhood are not put at risk. Not just telling me "wrap around services if needed." What exactly does that mean and how would it work? What does "temporary" mean and how does that work? I still feel this is very nebulous because I don't have any answers.
Also, does this satisfy the ruling that there be beds for homeless or will the police still be powerless to intervene in problems? (I mean, you're talking about 30 beds and there seems to be a lot more homeless than that)
Finally, what are our neighboring cities doing? If nothing, then they should be working with us since, from what I understood, we are also talking about homeless around Pier.
I am vehemently opposed to siting the homeless at the Aviation gym location-- too many families live near there!
Better yet, we need to move away from a policy of local accommodation that will attract the homeless to "magnet" centers in the South Bay. Do we want the same policies that have blighted so much of West Los Angeles and the beach cities to the north, Venice and Santa Monica, to now ruin the South Bay? Ironically, many families fled the Westside over the past 10 years and resettled here for this very reason (I am one of them). If Redondo follows the lead of Santa Monica and Venice, you can be assured that there will be an exodus of families away from here as well, along with the property tax revenues that go with it.
Living in North Redondo, I feel as though we pay all the premiums to be here, yet are constantly getting the short straw. The Metro, the huge condo development, and this proposed homeless shelter are all very recent examples. The proposed Kingsdale location is too close to the park, schools, businesses, and (most importantly) my house. Everyone who thinks this is a good idea should offer their personal money and land and not volunteer other people’s neighborhoods. The council should represent the best interests of the residents who live here. This Idea does not do that.
I say "neutral" since I do feel finding a solution is important - However - Since I live right off Kingsdale, with experience of homeless infiltrating El Nido Park and bringing unlawful activities to this supposed neighborhood family zone, I've also had homeless on my property late at night and behind our house on the tracks. This is unsafe for myself and my daughter so the location at Kingsdale will be way too problematic for the families and businesses here. In fact, the neighboring businesses all strongly oppose this location being used. A far more neutral location MUST be sought out. There are residences here owned by property tax paying citizens like myself, there are two schools (elementary and middle), there is a park with a playground and all of our shopping from grocery to clothing to dining, and the cemetery where folks go to mourn. There is just way to much going on here for Kingsdale to be on this list for consideration.
I oppose if this brings in homeless from other areas. I oppose if the anti-camping ordinance is not strictly enforced. I oppose the locations at Seaside Lagoon and Moonstone Park. These are tourist and visitors areas as well as community recreational areas. Are the hotels in that area that bring in valuable tax dollars to our city aware of those options?
We live very close to the proposed site (Kingsdale) and strongly oppose to having our neighborhood made the site of a homeless housing development , or homeless service providers, and drop-off sites. It will be difficult situation as a waiting list grows and homeless housing project spilling out onto the sidewalks that our kids use a walk to schools. As written in the Daily breeze "a student at Redondo Union High School does not feel safe walking down Broadway anymore on way home from school" Now imagine this is for the elementary and middle schoolers. I do agree that we must have a compassion toward anybody down on their luck, and what better than roof over their head. However, not at the expenses of the community and its most vulnerable population, kids. It's too close to the schools, park, and the economic heart of the North Redondo. We do not want our street turned into another block of Skid Row or Venice Blvd.
I have lived in S. Redondo for almost 39 years. I currently live close to St Andrews church where homeless individuals can get food and services multiple days of the week. In the last few years I have seen first hand this population significantly increase. I go through Vets Park, The Riveria Village, and the pier daily. Seeing so many homeless individuals loitering, and sleeping in public across Redondo Beach is disheartening. There is no location for a shelter that will make everyone happy. Even people who do not live in our city. If Redondo decides to move forward, the anti camping ordinance MUST be enforced. Redondo Beach has been shouldering this burden for way to long. It is time to get Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Palos Verdes to step up and help. Don't just send money!!
The pallets should be far away from schools, residential areas, & tourist areas. Also the the number of possible pallets at each location should be an important consideration. The more beds available (2 per pallet) the more tents/encampments can shut down. If a homeless person refuses shelter then RB’s anti camping laws can be enforced.
I strongly oppose the placement of the homeless shelter at the Aviation Gym parking lot as doing so would put the safety of our children in jeopardy. The area by Aviation Gym that includes the gym, track and field, and performing arts center is used by children and families daily. My children, along with many others, play sports at Aviation Gym and Aviation Field, which is directly by the gym and parking lot. When at the gym, they are not only inside the gym but they also use the area outside very frequently for team gatherings and meetings. With sports leagues, camps and various performances that include and are attended by children at the performing arts center, this would no longer be a safe environment for our children. Our homeless population needs to be helped but in a location that is appropriate. One that is not in a location that families and children use daily.
We live in North Redondo on Clark and Flagler, my kids go to Birney Elementary. I have always been impressed by the can-do spirit of Redondo Beach residents. We step up and help when help is needed! I have coordinated back to school drives and hygiene kit drives, and each time our neighbors drop off a ton of stuff to my front porch. Moreover, I run the Redondo Beach Homeless Count, and each time we are over-subscribed with volunteers - which we lend to nearby cities. Our RB Police department, unlike many other departments, our an integral part of the homeless count. They recognize, as do many of the residents in RB, that helping our homeless neighbors transition from Project Roomkey and into these pallet shelters is a must. We must recognize that there will never be a perfect location to site a homeless shelter, but we must also recognize that there are many faces to homelessness, including women, children, Veterans, and domestic violence victims. We strongly support the Pallet Shelter.
We strongly oppose this. We are homeowners in North Redondo, between Artesia and190th off Inglewood. Our neighborhood already has a misconception of being unsafe and undesirable and placing a homeless shelter here would only accentuate the challenges we face. We pay hefty property taxes and our goal is to clean up and beautify North Redondo in the years to come. Placing this shelter here would be a step in the opposite direction. Please please do not place this shelter in our neighborhood. Thank you.
I support providing accommodation for the homeless within our city limits; however I feel strongly that the selected location should not be near schools, parks or tourist areas.
Measure H is collecting $300-400 million for the homeless each year for 10 years, and what do we have to show for it-- sprinkling the homeless into EVERY residential community large and small throughout the County? Totally wrong approach.
Take that money and move them into the recently vacated St. Vincent's Hospital downtown. The schizophrenics and other mentally disturbed homeless would be best served in such a setting, not in and around our local streets, parks, and gyms. I just saw a homeless woman squatting and defecating at the corner of Aviation and Rosecrans last week. How well has this been working out for San Francisco? Let's use some common sense here.
We vehemently oppose the idea of building pallet housing in the Aviation Gym parking lot. This is a completely inappropriate location.
Please do not select this location
Thank you for planning on building this shelter. It is important that as a city we are able to enforce our camping ordinances and this will help accomplish this. I am not in favor of the Seaside Lagoon site because of the tourist draw that the area is, along with the marina. I think the other sites are better suited to a shelter location.
I oppose the location on kingsdale in North Redondo as it’s too close to schools and parks where there will be children. I understand there is a need but not so close to homes and families.
Aviation park does not have within walking distance a pharmacy or grocery stores other than trader joes. How are they going to get the things they need on a daily basis? Places need to be well thought out.
I've heard a lot of horrible things about the Venice pallet program, how will this be different?
I say "opposed" but I could be neutral if I really understood how this was going to work and how you will make sure people in the neighborhood are not put at risk. Not just telling me "wrap around services if needed." What exactly does that mean and how would it work? What does "temporary" mean and how does that work? I still feel this is very nebulous because I don't have any answers.
Also, does this satisfy the ruling that there be beds for homeless or will the police still be powerless to intervene in problems? (I mean, you're talking about 30 beds and there seems to be a lot more homeless than that)
Finally, what are our neighboring cities doing? If nothing, then they should be working with us since, from what I understood, we are also talking about homeless around Pier.
I am vehemently opposed to siting the homeless at the Aviation gym location-- too many families live near there!
Better yet, we need to move away from a policy of local accommodation that will attract the homeless to "magnet" centers in the South Bay. Do we want the same policies that have blighted so much of West Los Angeles and the beach cities to the north, Venice and Santa Monica, to now ruin the South Bay? Ironically, many families fled the Westside over the past 10 years and resettled here for this very reason (I am one of them). If Redondo follows the lead of Santa Monica and Venice, you can be assured that there will be an exodus of families away from here as well, along with the property tax revenues that go with it.
It needs to happen. Let's stop complaining and make solutions happen.
Living in North Redondo, I feel as though we pay all the premiums to be here, yet are constantly getting the short straw. The Metro, the huge condo development, and this proposed homeless shelter are all very recent examples. The proposed Kingsdale location is too close to the park, schools, businesses, and (most importantly) my house. Everyone who thinks this is a good idea should offer their personal money and land and not volunteer other people’s neighborhoods. The council should represent the best interests of the residents who live here. This Idea does not do that.
I say "neutral" since I do feel finding a solution is important - However - Since I live right off Kingsdale, with experience of homeless infiltrating El Nido Park and bringing unlawful activities to this supposed neighborhood family zone, I've also had homeless on my property late at night and behind our house on the tracks. This is unsafe for myself and my daughter so the location at Kingsdale will be way too problematic for the families and businesses here. In fact, the neighboring businesses all strongly oppose this location being used. A far more neutral location MUST be sought out. There are residences here owned by property tax paying citizens like myself, there are two schools (elementary and middle), there is a park with a playground and all of our shopping from grocery to clothing to dining, and the cemetery where folks go to mourn. There is just way to much going on here for Kingsdale to be on this list for consideration.
I oppose if this brings in homeless from other areas. I oppose if the anti-camping ordinance is not strictly enforced. I oppose the locations at Seaside Lagoon and Moonstone Park. These are tourist and visitors areas as well as community recreational areas. Are the hotels in that area that bring in valuable tax dollars to our city aware of those options?
We live very close to the proposed site (Kingsdale) and strongly oppose to having our neighborhood made the site of a homeless housing development , or homeless service providers, and drop-off sites. It will be difficult situation as a waiting list grows and homeless housing project spilling out onto the sidewalks that our kids use a walk to schools. As written in the Daily breeze "a student at Redondo Union High School does not feel safe walking down Broadway anymore on way home from school" Now imagine this is for the elementary and middle schoolers. I do agree that we must have a compassion toward anybody down on their luck, and what better than roof over their head. However, not at the expenses of the community and its most vulnerable population, kids. It's too close to the schools, park, and the economic heart of the North Redondo. We do not want our street turned into another block of Skid Row or Venice Blvd.
I have lived in S. Redondo for almost 39 years. I currently live close to St Andrews church where homeless individuals can get food and services multiple days of the week. In the last few years I have seen first hand this population significantly increase. I go through Vets Park, The Riveria Village, and the pier daily. Seeing so many homeless individuals loitering, and sleeping in public across Redondo Beach is disheartening. There is no location for a shelter that will make everyone happy. Even people who do not live in our city. If Redondo decides to move forward, the anti camping ordinance MUST be enforced. Redondo Beach has been shouldering this burden for way to long. It is time to get Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Palos Verdes to step up and help. Don't just send money!!
The pallets should be far away from schools, residential areas, & tourist areas. Also the the number of possible pallets at each location should be an important consideration. The more beds available (2 per pallet) the more tents/encampments can shut down. If a homeless person refuses shelter then RB’s anti camping laws can be enforced.
I strongly oppose the placement of the homeless shelter at the Aviation Gym parking lot as doing so would put the safety of our children in jeopardy. The area by Aviation Gym that includes the gym, track and field, and performing arts center is used by children and families daily. My children, along with many others, play sports at Aviation Gym and Aviation Field, which is directly by the gym and parking lot. When at the gym, they are not only inside the gym but they also use the area outside very frequently for team gatherings and meetings. With sports leagues, camps and various performances that include and are attended by children at the performing arts center, this would no longer be a safe environment for our children. Our homeless population needs to be helped but in a location that is appropriate. One that is not in a location that families and children use daily.
We live in North Redondo on Clark and Flagler, my kids go to Birney Elementary. I have always been impressed by the can-do spirit of Redondo Beach residents. We step up and help when help is needed! I have coordinated back to school drives and hygiene kit drives, and each time our neighbors drop off a ton of stuff to my front porch. Moreover, I run the Redondo Beach Homeless Count, and each time we are over-subscribed with volunteers - which we lend to nearby cities. Our RB Police department, unlike many other departments, our an integral part of the homeless count. They recognize, as do many of the residents in RB, that helping our homeless neighbors transition from Project Roomkey and into these pallet shelters is a must. We must recognize that there will never be a perfect location to site a homeless shelter, but we must also recognize that there are many faces to homelessness, including women, children, Veterans, and domestic violence victims. We strongly support the Pallet Shelter.
We strongly oppose this. We are homeowners in North Redondo, between Artesia and190th off Inglewood. Our neighborhood already has a misconception of being unsafe and undesirable and placing a homeless shelter here would only accentuate the challenges we face. We pay hefty property taxes and our goal is to clean up and beautify North Redondo in the years to come. Placing this shelter here would be a step in the opposite direction. Please please do not place this shelter in our neighborhood. Thank you.
I support providing accommodation for the homeless within our city limits; however I feel strongly that the selected location should not be near schools, parks or tourist areas.