Town Hall on Supportive Housing for the Homeless

A few days ago I promised I would give a report of how the Town Hall meeting went. The short answer is that it went remarkably well. But I need to qualify what I mean. First a little background.

The Town Hall was held in part to further inform the community about a proposed Permanent Supportive Housing development just north of Hollywood Blvd on Gower St., in part to allow the community let off some steam in a constructive way. Over 450 people attended, so clearly this is an issue with some emotion attached to it. There have been efforts in the community to raise suspicions about this project and to generally cast it in a negative light.

Councilmember Eric Garcetti headlined the event by giving what I felt was an extremely articulate and well-reasoned speech. It was the first time I met Garcetti and I was very impressed (but maybe that's what politicians are supposed to do, right?). Then there were presentations by Lesslie Wise from the Corporation for Supportive Housing, John Perez from the Community Redevelopment Agency/LA, and representatives from both Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's and Eric Garcetti's offices.

I was a part of a small panel of community stakeholders. I was one of three representing community members who are in favor of this project. There were also three against the project. We all had chances then, to answer questions written by members of the audience.

When I say it went remarkably well, what I mean is several things:

1. The community came together over an issue that we all care about very deeply. The community cares about this issue for a variety of different reasons, but our concern brought us together. This alone is something good. There is a sense of social capital building. A much worse outcome would be no one shows for a crucial community discussion.
2. There was no violence - physically or verbally. It was close - very close - but we got through the night and were nice to each other. Opinions were shared, sometimes with passion. This is also a good thing.
3. Finally, from my perspective, I think there was more light than heat. I think people genuinely learned things (I know I did) and went away from the meeting more informed, less motivated by fear and innuendo and more commited to helping make Hollywood a good place for everyone.

As always, the networking and fellowship with neighbors and friends was my favorite part of the meeting. Special thanks to the members of the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church who came out to support - some from quite a distance. It's so inspiring to see friends from my congregation getting involved in community action!

Finally, Steve Lopez had a great article in the paper last Sunday (two days before the Town Hall) in which he quotes Sarah Phelps, who, by the way, did a great job of organizing those of us who would speak in favor of the project. One young man named Kurt had been homeless and drug addicted and and as a result of a program similar to this, is now back in the main stream of society. His story was so inspiring that people just kept clapping. Perhaps I'll share more about Kurt another time.

Comments

[Monte Sahlin]

Sounds like the people who put this meeting together knew what they were doing. Will the project move ahead? Are there still decision points to work through?

I guess the still small voice that comes to me whenever I hear about a meeting of this kind is what must we do to help people see the essential unfairness and prejudice involved in the "not in my backyard" attitude. The homeless or ------ [fill in the blank] are here. They are one of us. Like a relative who may rub us the wrong way, they are part of the family and we have to live with them.

Part of this attitude probably comes from the ultra-individualistic values we have today in which we are largely unwilling to restrict behavior simply because it is uncomfortable for others. Because we want to be free to do things that others might find offensive, we are unwilling to restrict the behavior of others and prefer to distance ourselves from those we think may behave in ways we don't like. The very definition of civility or civilization is that we restrain ourselves from things we find perfectly acceptable simply because we don't want to offend a neighbor. (Example; if I am writing all night and complete a manuscript at 4:14 a.m. it is perfectly acceptable for me to turn on loud music and just mellow out in the pounding sound. It is something like taking a relaxing shower with one of those pulser units. But, I don't do unless I am alone in an isolated cabin simply because I don't want to offend my neighbors.) We need to help people see that a certain amount of unselfish restraint is necessary in order to live together on this planet.

[Ryan Bell]

There is high likelihood that the project will move forward. Eric Garcetti (councilmember for District 13 where the propety is) says, "this is not a matter of if, but how?" The decision points that remain are many. The developer and service providers have not yet been selected. The CRA issues what they call and RFQ (Request for Qualifications). Then there is another community stakeholder meeting after which these providers will be selected. Then the project can move forward. But it has all the political support it needs from the mayor and the city council. The religious community is 100% behind it as well.