An Interview with Shelly

To get an understanding of some of the issues that are driving the concern about the proposed development of Sunny Acres by Transitions Mental Health Association, we interviewed Shelly about her personal and professional concerns.

If we asked Shelly to describe herself, she would probably say, first of all, that she is a mother of a 4 year old and then that she is a mental health care professional, a neighbor living within walking distance to the property and that she is a daily visitor to the property with her dog, Hannah, often with her son and her husband.

She probably represents most categories of people most negatively affected by the proposed Transitions Project.

Shelly, As a mental health care professional, what are your concerns about the project?

First of all, the efficacy of the project concept.  Research has shown that mental health projects such as these have not been very effective in producing positive results.  A high percentage of patients fall out of programs and return to a life style of homelessness and street culture that can include addiction and crime  Mental illness is a difficult illness to cure and overcome.

Second, those programs which have been most successful have been small group situations.  Two to 5 patients living in a small home based facility with a normal family.  This is where success has been achieved.  And even those situation have a high turnover rate.

Larger groups have not been very successful.  The proposed project starts out with the Sunny Acres building containing 13 units occupied by 13 – 26 patients and no home based family.  And is conceived to grow to 35 units and up to 80 residents.  This is a recipe for disaster.

Third, organizations like Transitions receive funding from governmental agencies based upon the number of occupied bed-days in a facility.  So the motivation for them to get the necessary funding from these agencies is to keep a high density of occupants.  With low success rates, the facility will seem like a revolving door with Transitions seeking more and more potential patients from within and outside the county and those for whom the program is not successful walking out the door onto our neighborhood streets.

Shelly, as a neighbor and mother, what concerns you?

As you know, the county mental health facility currently on Johnson Avenue works with mental health patients.  Already with the existing facility, neighbors have had patients enter their homes and properties frightening the families.

With regard to the proposed development, I am concerned that patients that are, and I am quoting Transitions own language here, “substantially mentally impaired” often have behaviors and presentations that are highly undesirable in neighborhoods, frightening even, for children and mothers caring for children within their neighborhoods. This is why the city police frequently ask them to move on from places like Mitchell Park.

One of the basic tenets of programs similar to those proposed by Transitions is assimilation of these patients into normal community life situations – visiting downtown, supermarket shopping, etc.  This means that these patients will be walking through the adjacent neighborhoods.  I fear that either that will be problematic for the neighborhoods and/or it will require increased police presence similar to that planned by our police department for the upcoming “homeless” facility near Prado Road.

We understand that you and your dog, Hannah, spend time on the property.  Tell us about that.

Yes, there is access to the property behind the old County General Hospital behind Fixlini.  Most days, Hannah and I walk up to the property and walk around it.  Throughout the day we see tens of people using that property for a dog park, for an exercise area and as an escape from their office.  A walk around the building is about like walking on a ¼ mile track but with terrain up and down hills.  From a nature perspective, we get to see the change in seasons, wild grass, wild flowers, gophers and squirrels and birds.  If this property is developed, that will all go away.  The property is also used by neighbors and students  from the Flora neighborhood traveling to the high school and to downtown.

I wonder if the sheer number of people who will be helped by the facility will outweigh the current number of users of the property.

Why do you think this development is being proposed on this location?

That is a really good question.  I guess my assumption would be convenience.

The county is between a rock and a hard spot.  The building obviously has problems.  It is an eye sore.  It has asbestos as part of its building materials.  Making the building whole again, according to the county documents for the option provided to Transitions, will take upwards of $5 million.  They have considered demolishing the building, but dealing with the building materials would also be very expensive.  So, making it useable is expensive and getting rid of it is expensive.  Between a rock and a hard place.

So what have they done?  They have “given it away” via an $1,000 option to purchase for $100 to somebody else who may be willing to make it whole, Transitions.  Wouldn’t we all like to give away our problems?  But the issue is that they have not considered the impact upon the community and the residents, they have just gotten rid of today’s problem without considering the problems it will cause tomorrow.

As far as Transitions goes, it seems like a no brainer.  They get a building and land essentially free.  All it costs them is $1,100 for an acre plus and a building that, hopefully, they can get some historical society to fund the rehabilitation.  If they cannot get the funding, they are only out the $1,000 cost of the option.  I am guessing that they think they could become Heroes to the County.  They made a County problem go away.  And what non-profit wouldn’t like a history of being a Hero in the eyes of the County who provides funding for projects Transitions has on their drawing boards.

And the City.  To make this all happen, the City needs to rezone the property from currently Open Space to Residential.  Otherwise, the Sunny Acres could only house 3 units max, not the 13 planned.  What does the City get out of all this?  That is a good question and I can only think you must look to the individuals within the City who are promoting this cause.

Number one is John Ashbaugh.  John has a history of supporting mental health care.  He served on the board of Transitions for several years.  You must applaud his involvement in the area.  But, sometimes, individuals, for many reasons, become focused on one target much to the detriment of other issues.  Could John’s passion for the mental health areas be overwhelming his role of City Councilman with concerns for the entire community?

In a recent response to our neighborhood concern, John Ashbaugh wrote that City Manager, Katie Lichtig, and, Community Development Directory, Derek Johnson, have been involved in promoting this project.  What do they have to gain?  What does the City have to gain?  I guess we will need to find out.

What is the process that must occur before this proposed project can become a done deal ?

Also a good question.  We are just beginning to understand all this.

First, the County has signed the option agreement.  So, it is legally committed to provide the option to Transitions.  I assume to renege on this would be costly in legal fees and potentially a settlement or legal enforcement.

Second, Transitions needs to get the City to rezone the property for residential use if Transitions wants more than 3 units in the building.  Transitions needs either to ask the City for a change in zoning or ask for an exception for the building.  Or, they can encourage the City to make a change to the general plan as part of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) update to the general plan which has been in process for the last two years.  The LUCE update is scheduled to be approved by the City Council in September of this year.

As we understand, the LUCE effort is funded by the state and must be completed this year.  One of the important aspects of the LUCE effort has been an outreach to the community for input and involvement.  Several workshops were conducted to solicit community input.  These were not heavily attended.  However, with regard to the General Hospital area, the primary input from the community was to not change the zoning of the area.  Interestingly, though, in the most current draft of the update, new language was provided by the City Council which includes rezoning part of the property to residential:

The how and why of these changes to the LUCE draft seem interestingly convenient for Transitions.  If this wording is included in the final LUCE update approved by the City Council and applied to the historical building, then one hurdle for the Transitions group is eliminated.  Could it be that this change is attributed to John Ashbaugh’s membership and influence on the City Council.

The next step would be for Transitions to raise the appropriate funding for the project within the 5 year lifetime of the option and, we assume, fulfill the approval process generally used by the City for new development.

While you question the efficacy of such a project, do you think it is a waste of effort by Transitions to create transitional living facilities?

No, not at all.  I just question the location of the facility, the size of the facility, the total cost of $5 million plus for the facility and the impact it may have on the adjacent neighborhoods and the community.

First, does it make sense to locate such a facility into the midst of two family oriented residential areas – Wilding, Skylark and Fixlini on the north and Flora on the south?

Second, why not continue with the small facility approach that has been successful in the past.

Third, for less than $5 million plus couldn’t land be found and purchased and a new facility be built at another location.  Either in concert with the to be built homeless facility or in conjunction with the other Sunny Acres run by Dan De Vaul.

Fourth, the community must recognize that if you build it they will come.  The better facilities that we provide for the homeless, the more desirable this community will be for the homeless.

What can residents and neighbors do to express their concerns?

At this point in time, we must express our concern to the City.  They are the current holders of the keys to progressing this project.  If the LUCE wording stays as currently drafted and is applied to the building, then Transitions has a green light to continue with the project.  It does not necessarily mean that it will happen as we believe that the project must still go through the normal Community Development approval process.  But the current LUCE wording sets the foundation for the process if unchanged.

If the City received 100 letters of objection.  If a future City Council meeting has 5 -10 speakers objecting to the project with 100 others attending the meeting, the City Council will listen.  And know that they risk re-election in November if they do not listen.

Shelly, thank you for sharing your thoughts.  If someone shares your concerns, how can they find out more about the project and the efforts to change it.

We have compiled a website for just that purpose, SunnyAcresHB.alh-group.com.  If a concerned neighbor goes to the website and chooses the Contact menu option, they can send a message to us of their interest in opposing the project.  Of course, they can send an email or a letter to the City Manager, City Community Development Director and to the City Council members expressing their concern.