Barbara Sharp's position on the Homeless Shelter
Mar/20/2009 02:37
During the primary for Burbank City Council, United Burbank member Robert Melling contacted candidate Barbara Sharp and asked her position on the Winter Homeless Shelter at the Armory. Her response was eloquent and spot-on.
Thank you for your response to my e-mail and for your question regarding the use of the Burbank California National Guard Armory for the homeless of Los Angeles.
I am not in favor of continuing the Winter Shelter Program in Burbank for the 2009 -2010 year. Burbank has various programs, City-sponsored and private, that serve the needs of our own community. I do not view importing the homeless of Los Angeles as being in the best interests of Burbank residents. The fact that Glendale, who utilized their Armory for ten years, no longer desires to participate in this project, funded by Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), in no way obligates Burbank to carry this torch forward.
The primary role of the LAHSA is to coordinate and manage over $60 million dollars annually in Federal, State, County and City funding for programs that provide shelter, housing and services to homeless persons in Los Angeles City and County. As mentioned, since Burbank already takes care of its own, the utilization of our Armory is a diversion of our resources and impact on our residents, and Fire and Police Departments that is not necessary given the huge amount of resources available to the LAHSA.
Glendale reports that it remains committed to addressing their fair share of the “regional” homeless issue, but I do not similarly define the situation in that way. I believe the homeless issue is more “City”-driven; meaning, the homeless choose to congregate in communities where it is most convenient to do so. Burbank cannot control the policies, practices and municipal laws (and enforcement thereof) in other Cities as to their homeless and transients. Therefore, I cannot support drawing off our resources and importing the region’s homeless to participate in situations created elsewhere over which Burbank has no control in either monitoring or resolving throughout the remainder of the year. Again, since Burbank already has outreach programs that address the unfortunate in our own community, I do not believe our obligation in this regard extends to the “region.” (I would be interested to learn how Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Malibu and Marina del Rey, for example, participate in addressing their fair share of the “regional” homeless issue.)
During this past Christmas, I volunteered several times at the Burbank Temporary Aid Center (BTAC). Most of the people assisted there were not homeless, and typically, when they did classify themselves as homeless, they nevertheless were afforded cooking, bathing and sleeping facilities at the homes of friends and neighbors, and were strongly aided by our faith-based community here in Burbank. (The BTAC also provides laundry and shower facilities.) I simply do not agree that the City needs to inject itself any further into the business of homeless shelters, which extends far beyond sleeping facilities at the Armory.
For example, Burbank provides bus transportation on Front Street across from the Downtown Metrolink Station. At that location, a portable restroom facility is also provided and maintained. The site is monitored and cleaned daily by Burbank’s Public Works Department. Further, ongoing, private security is provided at the Armory during the entire time it is open; showers are provided and meals are served. The fact that we were not providing these services prior to 2007-2008, is evidence that this comprehensive approach was not needed in Burbank.
Conceivably, the result of the use of importing the homeless is that some stay. The Burbank Temporary Aid Center reports that prior to opening the Winter Shelter Program (WSP) at the Armory, they distributed around 100 sack lunches per day. When the WSP closed last year, BTAC says the number of sack lunch recipients increased to 200 to 225. While the City does not acknowledge that Burbank, by virtue of our participation in the WSP, has doubled its homeless population, the City also downplays the other negative impacts.
For example, residents reported a number of additional RVs and vehicles parked in the vicinity of the Armory, and Fry’s Electronics experienced homeless individuals loitering during the day. It is also estimated that this year’s participation will impact our Police and Fire Departments as the need for safety services increases.
Burbank always responds in a very caring and generous manner, and was commended for their generosity during the 2007 – 2008 Armory program. However, for the reasons stated, I do not support our participation in this program in the years going forward and I certainly do not support this program becoming even a ten-year fixture in Burbank as it was in Glendale. With this said, I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I recognize we should be a compassionate community and I believe we are just that. I simply do not support the importation of other City’s homeless into Burbank.
I trust I answered your question fully, but if you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Again, I thank you for taking the time to consider my opinions.
Best regards,
Barbara Sharp
I am not in favor of continuing the Winter Shelter Program in Burbank for the 2009 -2010 year. Burbank has various programs, City-sponsored and private, that serve the needs of our own community. I do not view importing the homeless of Los Angeles as being in the best interests of Burbank residents. The fact that Glendale, who utilized their Armory for ten years, no longer desires to participate in this project, funded by Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), in no way obligates Burbank to carry this torch forward.
The primary role of the LAHSA is to coordinate and manage over $60 million dollars annually in Federal, State, County and City funding for programs that provide shelter, housing and services to homeless persons in Los Angeles City and County. As mentioned, since Burbank already takes care of its own, the utilization of our Armory is a diversion of our resources and impact on our residents, and Fire and Police Departments that is not necessary given the huge amount of resources available to the LAHSA.
Glendale reports that it remains committed to addressing their fair share of the “regional” homeless issue, but I do not similarly define the situation in that way. I believe the homeless issue is more “City”-driven; meaning, the homeless choose to congregate in communities where it is most convenient to do so. Burbank cannot control the policies, practices and municipal laws (and enforcement thereof) in other Cities as to their homeless and transients. Therefore, I cannot support drawing off our resources and importing the region’s homeless to participate in situations created elsewhere over which Burbank has no control in either monitoring or resolving throughout the remainder of the year. Again, since Burbank already has outreach programs that address the unfortunate in our own community, I do not believe our obligation in this regard extends to the “region.” (I would be interested to learn how Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Malibu and Marina del Rey, for example, participate in addressing their fair share of the “regional” homeless issue.)
During this past Christmas, I volunteered several times at the Burbank Temporary Aid Center (BTAC). Most of the people assisted there were not homeless, and typically, when they did classify themselves as homeless, they nevertheless were afforded cooking, bathing and sleeping facilities at the homes of friends and neighbors, and were strongly aided by our faith-based community here in Burbank. (The BTAC also provides laundry and shower facilities.) I simply do not agree that the City needs to inject itself any further into the business of homeless shelters, which extends far beyond sleeping facilities at the Armory.
For example, Burbank provides bus transportation on Front Street across from the Downtown Metrolink Station. At that location, a portable restroom facility is also provided and maintained. The site is monitored and cleaned daily by Burbank’s Public Works Department. Further, ongoing, private security is provided at the Armory during the entire time it is open; showers are provided and meals are served. The fact that we were not providing these services prior to 2007-2008, is evidence that this comprehensive approach was not needed in Burbank.
Conceivably, the result of the use of importing the homeless is that some stay. The Burbank Temporary Aid Center reports that prior to opening the Winter Shelter Program (WSP) at the Armory, they distributed around 100 sack lunches per day. When the WSP closed last year, BTAC says the number of sack lunch recipients increased to 200 to 225. While the City does not acknowledge that Burbank, by virtue of our participation in the WSP, has doubled its homeless population, the City also downplays the other negative impacts.
For example, residents reported a number of additional RVs and vehicles parked in the vicinity of the Armory, and Fry’s Electronics experienced homeless individuals loitering during the day. It is also estimated that this year’s participation will impact our Police and Fire Departments as the need for safety services increases.
Burbank always responds in a very caring and generous manner, and was commended for their generosity during the 2007 – 2008 Armory program. However, for the reasons stated, I do not support our participation in this program in the years going forward and I certainly do not support this program becoming even a ten-year fixture in Burbank as it was in Glendale. With this said, I do not want anyone to misunderstand me. I recognize we should be a compassionate community and I believe we are just that. I simply do not support the importation of other City’s homeless into Burbank.
I trust I answered your question fully, but if you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time. Again, I thank you for taking the time to consider my opinions.
Best regards,
Barbara Sharp