On Tuesday Oct. 1, the Lompoc City Council held another hearing to consider a Safe Parking Pilot Program, but this isn’t about safe parking for all citizens, just those homeless people living in mobile homes and campers on our streets.

The staff report is very informative on the homeless issue in our city:

“During the 2017 Point in Time (PIT) count, 219 persons were counted as experiencing homelessness and living without shelter in Lompoc. While there is one homeless shelter that serves the City’s homeless population, it is a 56-bed, year-round emergency shelter, which is often full year-round. In fact, the City, like many other cities throughout the State of California, declared a housing shelter crisis in October 2018.”

During public testimony, the manager of the homeless shelter on Sweeny Road referred to in the staff report, said his group housed “100 people a night.” So, either the staff report was wrong, or the operator of the facility was. I am betting the operator of the facility has the best first-hand knowledge of his operation.

Addressing the homeless issue has been a priority all over the state for the last few years; there have been lots of meetings, seminars, conferences and handwringing, but there hasn’t been much improvement. Maybe it makes people feel better just to talk about it — there, problem solved, can’t we just solve global warming?

Last December the Lompoc City Council discussed the potential of allowing “for a three (3) month, temporary time period, where (Safe Parking) Program participants would be allowed to camp overnight in a designated parking area in the City Hall parking lot (directly across from the Police Department).  Participants would be allowed to park safely between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., seven days a week.”

This presented a number of problems. First, the public might be deterred from attending public meetings at City Hall because they perceived a safety concern. Second, at many meetings the parking lot is full of people who have an interest in what’s being discussed. Last, there are no restrooms or drinking water available in this parking lot.

Wisely, “After much discussion, the City Council directed staff to return with an alternate location, off of the main thoroughfare of the City.” Three other areas addressed as potential sites in the Oct. 1 staff report presented similar problems.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers in Sacramento are busying themselves “advancing legislation to protect homeless people who live in their cars and/or recreational vehicles from fines and vehicle impounds.  This legislation has limited the local governments from citing illegal camping on City streets.”

There, that will fix the problem; just enable them to clutter our streets, dump their sewage and garbage wherever they feel like it, and generally thumb their noses at established rules and the public.

But our City Council could have begun to “fix it.” The staff report suggests: “If the City Council directs staff to move forward and solicit proposals in order to provide a comprehensive Safe Parking Program, then those proposals will be presented to the City Council for funding consideration. As mentioned earlier, the range could be between $55,000 and $360,000.”

During council debate Councilman Dirk Starbuck said, “With all the money that’s available to the county for housing programs, why is the city involved in this? We don’t have $5,000 a month and certainly don’t have $360,000 to spend. And, if we do good serving the few people who are here, we will have caravans of people showing up to take advantage of the program.”

The staff responded that county and city governments aren’t in the business of running Safe Parking programs; they create a program, then announce a Request for Proposals (RFP). The nonprofit then puts together a program, provides a cost estimate, and they run it. Lompoc was not included in a recent county RFP because we didn’t have a program in place.

Councilman Jim Mosby said that because an appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court decision that it was illegal for the city of Boise, Idaho, to ban sleeping in public places (Martin v. Boise) was pending before the Supreme Court, it would be better to continue this item until after that appeal was decided. His motion passed 3-2, so the mobile homeless remain on city streets.

Apparently, the three councilmen who voted to kick the can down the road didn’t have the sophistication to grasp the recommendation in the staff report and only focused on the current absence of city provided funding.

But, as both staff and the operator of the nonprofit running the Sweeny Road shelter pointed out, grants to operate a Safe Parking Program can’t be applied for unless the city defines a need, that’s what this hearing was about. It’s just common sense — without a project scope or program, how could a nonprofit obtain grant funding?

Sometimes it’s better to listen to the experts on these matters instead of coming to the meeting with a preconceived decision in mind. That’s the trouble with politicians who think they know it all and thus make bad decisions; this was just another example of that phenomena.

So, more talk and no action which seems to be the consistent approach to this problem.

— Ron Fink, a Lompoc resident since 1975, is retired from the aerospace industry and has been active with Lompoc municipal government commissions and committee since 1992, including 12 years on the Lompoc Planning Commission. He is also a voting member of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. Contact him at news@noozhawk.com. Click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.