Alyssa Emerson, May 5, 2014

Dear County Board of Supervisors, City Council, and TMHA Executive Board:

It appears that John Ashbaugh, a former TMHA Board member, may have used his influence as a city councilman to encourage the sale of the Sunny Acres property to TMHA for $100 without prior consult with the neighborhood or community.  This county is full of innovative, bright, people who did not have the same opportunity as TMHA to offer ideas for this large property in the middle of single-family residential neighborhoods.  One can only imagine the exciting and innovative projects that could have been submitted had the city actually considered the interests of all its residents and solicited a call for proposals, best project wins.  There are many community groups and local non-profit organizations that also have needs/interests equal to those of TMHA.  However, because TMHA has a former member on the City Council, it looks like they got special treatment. It is reasonable that Ashbaugh would know that once the property was sold to TMHA, it would make it much more difficult for the community to stop the process.  This favoritism is unacceptable; moreover, the Sunny Acres proposal by TMHA is unacceptable for many compelling reasons.

In John Ashbaugh’s response to community members’ concerns he compared the TMHA transition homes that dot his Cerro Romauldo neighborhood to the large-scale project proposed above General Hospital.  His comparison of these two types of housing should seriously concern community members, the County Board of Supervisors, and City Council because it is evident a city council member is not acknowledging that surrounding neighborhoods would be significantly impacted by this large-scale project that is not the best solution for anyone involved.

Location:  Sunny Acres was abandoned as a home for orphans and later troubled youth when the needs outgrew the size of the facility and the surrounding hillside had developed into single-family residences.  Years ago, city leaders realized that Sunny Acres was no longer a location for such services.  Today, Sunny Acres is surrounded by even more single-family residences, in low-density housing.  Also nearby is SLO High School. Incidentally, many students walk and bicycle daily to and from school using the property as a route, and many more utilize this open space daily.  There is virtually no medium- or high-density housing north of Johnson along the entirety of the base of this mountain range, extending all the way from Johnson and Orcutt to the end of San Luis Drive.  A development of this sort and size would be unlike any other housing development in the area.

Safety:   As a resident adjacent to the proposed project, we, too, have transition homes nearby and appreciate that such small-scale group homes, in many cases, can be successful in providing housing for a demographic in our community that wants to integrate fully and productively.  However, unlike Ashbaugh, I have had unpleasant encounters with the residents of one transition home as I walk my children to school.  Therefore, the prospect of multiple units of this sort causes me concern.  This is where Ashbaugh’s comparison of his neighborhood to mine especially weakens.  You see, Ashbaugh’s neighborhood does not also include the Health Department, Probation, and Mental Health Services.  Offering this multitude of services in one area greatly increases the likelihood of these types of occurrences.  On another occasion, my children were accosted by people seeking services at these facilities.  Even more alarming, we recall when a mentally ill patient eluded his health care providers at these nearby facilities and police were dispatched to secure the individual for the safety of the patient and the surrounding neighborhood.  These are only a few examples of the types of experiences people in this neighborhood have been forced to experience.  As a result, I cannot agree with Ashbaugh when he claims in a letter responding to citizen concerns that “your safety will in no way be impaired or threatened by the presence of the new residents at Sunny Acres.” In fact, these examples should serve as reminders that a portion of individuals diagnosed with mental illness have been prescribed therapy, behavior modification, and medication to treat their illness because they pose a threat to themselves and to others.  Having a large concentration of such a demographic in my neighborhood is a valid concern, especially considering Jill Bolster-White, TMHA’s own Executive Director’s own words when she stated in a Tribune article that“most people we have in our programs [TMHA] are people who have a substantial impairment with mental illness.”   In addition, Bolster-White admitted that the residents of such a facility would have criminal records. A large development that would serve people with significant mental illness diagnoses and criminal histories, does not belong in a neighborhood bordered by schools, the elderly, and families with children.

Size:  Also, unlike Ashbaugh’s neighborhood, the project proposed adjacent to my neighborhood is anything but small scale, with an estimated 13-43 units in as many as 4 buildings, what would become a campus for housing the currently homeless mentally ill.  Yes, the objective of the project—providing housing for the homeless—is an ethical goal. There is no disagreement that homelessness has become one of the greatest concerns for the city, and the debate of how best to address the situation remains ongoing, especially with the high cost of housing and land, a challenge for nearly every resident in the city.  Bolster-White was quoted in a Tribune article, “This [housing for the homeless mentally ill] is one of the top needs in the county…If we are trying to get people off the streets, but we don’t have housing that is affordable and reasonable it becomes nearly impossible.”  Nevertheless, the arrangement made between the County, City and TMHA that made the property affordable—to TMHA only without opening it up to any other proposals—does not make the scale or location of the project any less inappropriate.

Type:  The Johnson-Bishop block is evolving into an area where a multitude of social services are being offered for a particular demographic, resulting in a modern-day institutionalization, of sorts, of these individuals. As noted earlier, the Health Department and General Hospital offer state-funded mental and physical healthcare. Probation is available for those convicted of crimes.  The childcare center is childcare mandated for at-risk youth.  Now the city wants to build four additional buildings to provide housing to the homeless mentally ill.  This would not be a high-security facility, but, like ASH, this area would become a compound where many of those same services are provided, and these formally homeless mentally ill people would be housed together in large numbers.  This does not sound like a strategy for treating these people as individuals and integrating them into their home communities.  Rather, TMHA and Ashbaugh’s grand plan would result in segregating these individuals as a group, just outside of downtown, up on a hill behind the bus stop, sandwiched between two established family neighborhoods.

Understandably, though short-sighted, grouping these services and people in one location may seem ideal, as all the services they would need would be at their doorstep.  Also, they would be “out of sight and out of mind” for much of the city.  Fortunately, we have moved beyond the arcane institutionalization of the high-functioning mentally ill so typical up until the 50’s and in most institutions have adopted strategies that work to integrate the mentally ill as functioning, productive members of the community.  For example, I have been an educator for twenty years.  Individuals with mental illness have always been a part of the student population I serve.  I work with them daily to help them achieve their academic goals and improve their opportunities in life, just as with any student.  These students take classes, receive counseling, utilize resources, and enjoy socialization in many different buildings and classrooms from many different teachers, staff, and administrators all over the campus.  Administrators would never consider segregating this student population.  We would not put them into their own separate classes, away from the rest of the general student population, on a certain section of the campus.  Unfortunately, the “administrators” of this proposed Sunny Acres campus see things very differently.   This should be disconcerting to those who live in the area, to those who benefit from such social services, and to the entire San Luis Obispo County.  The location and size of the project are problematic on many levels, logistically and ethically.

Neighborhood Residents and the Entire Community Needs Support of the County Board of Supervisors and the City Council:  Building a large housing complex specifically for the diagnosed mentally ill in the middle of single-family residential neighborhoods is not a practical way to address the problem of homelessness, and it will undoubtedly create more long-term problems than short-term victories. TMHA and the city need to find another way to provide services to those in need.  Whether razing or renovating the Sunny Acres building, it will be a costly endeavor.  For TMHA to use taxpayer dollars in the form of tax credits and grant monies for such an undertaking seems an inappropriate use of funds.  How many homes could be purchased with the millions the project would cost?  Ashbaugh claims to be fond of the idea of repurposing Sunny Acres; however, even interspersing transition homes throughout the community seems like a better long-term strategy for repurposing land and property than such an irreversible grand plan like the Sunny Acres development.  Ashbaugh’s statements about historic preservation and renovation, while well-intentioned, actually sound more like a red herring than well-reasoned justification for this proposed project.  We know the County wants to be rid of this costly cleanup, the City wants to make use of the land, and THMA wants to help its clients, all understandable objectives, however when combined result in failure for many reasons.  True, I am concerned about what is happening in my neighborhood, and clearly have good reasons to be, but the nature of the project and circumstances from which it came about are equally disconcerting.  Fortunately, I learned of this project from neighbors—because no one on these governing boards contacted the people that live in these adjacent neighborhoods prior to the $100 sale of the property.  This is very troubling.

We need our elected leaders to represent us, without their interests divided.  Therefore, John Ashbaugh should recuse himself from voting on this project as he was a member of the very organization that wants to build the facility.  We need a mental health entity that will employ progressive, ethical strategies that are proven effective methods for successfully integrating those who want to be productive, positive contributing members of our communities, and TMHA has been clearly successful at that endeavor in the past, but this plan is flawed.  Most importantly, we need a County Board of Supervisors and City Council that will make long-term decisions that will keep our neighborhoods safe, our children safe, and provide for the needs of all its constituents in a reasonable and responsible manner.  I urge all of you in these positions of power to stop any forward progress on the Sunny Acres development and pursue other methods for meeting each of your needs.

Sincerely,
Alyssa Emerson