Discussion

This page is available for anyone who wants to make a general comment.

7 Responses to "Discussion"

lanny says:

April 22, 2014 at 11:09 pm

As we look forward, it appears that there are two ways to halt the Transitions project for the Sunny Acres property. Since the County has signed the option agreement with Transitions, they would be defaulting on the agreement if they changed their minds. Certainly we would like them to realize that they made a poor decision in not consulting the neighborhoods before giving the property away to Transitions, but legally they may be stuck with it.

So the two approaches we must take are to either entice Transitions to stop the project or to make sure the City does not approve the project either by not subdividing the property or not approving the renovation and construction.

Hopefully, Transitions will realize that there is a very dedicated, organized, neighborhood opposition to the project and understand that the cost to them financially and to their image in the community will be too high to continue the project. That is one approach we must take.

And, hopefully, the City will recognize the same. That there is a strong, organized, neighborhood based opposition to 1) the proposed update to LUCE, 2) to the rezoning of the property and 3) to approving the project development.

The way to accomplish both is to communicate with them your concerns about the project. Several neighbors have written letters or emails to the Board Of Supervisors and the City Council members.

We should also include the Board of Directors of Transitions and the management of Transitions. The more of us that communicate to the City and to Transitions, the more they will understand that even though we were not consulted about their plans and project, we want to be included and are expressing our rights to object.

Of course, just because we are concerned about this project, we are not necessarily condemning all the services and decisions the City makes. As well, just because Transitions is involved in the poorly conceived and implemented project, it does not mean we do not appreciate the work that Transitions performs. We should be cognizant that these people are not necessarily bad people, it is just that they have made bad decisions.

The Transitions website lists their Board of Directors and Management, but does not list their email addresses. If you know them, please forward them to the website contact so they can be posted.

Reply
Shelly says:

April 23, 2014 at 1:49 am

We have just become aware of some of the funding sources Transitions Mental Health is planning on for the $5 million dollar rehab of the Sunny Acres building. Some of the money could be from city funds – TAX DOLLARS.

This issue goes way beyond whether or not our neighborhoods want a transitional home for mentally ill patients within feet of our homes. The waste of hard-earned public money on a building, money that could be spent on an investment in children and families, is unbelievable.

If a private developer wants to use his own money in hopes of a return that is one thing. But for a non profit to use our tax money on their ill-conceived pet project, in a place that requires rezoning to high density, in a neighborhood that was never consulted is beyond the pale.

I am terribly disappointed in our city officials and city staff. In my opinion this is a serious breach of trust and an abuse of power.

Transitions needs to pull out of this contract. The county needs to consult neighbors about what we would be willing to accept in the Sunny Acres building. The city needs to maintain current low density and open space designations on that property.

We need to unite and take a stand against this!

Reply
Ray says:

April 24, 2014 at 2:02 am

Dear Shelly;

In response to your observation:

“Most neighborhoods in SLO are under assault from huge developments that have no place in small residential neighborhoods. People want to help one another.”

I do not want my reply to distract group attention from the focus currently needed on the Sunny Acres /Transitions Health Care issue, however your point touches the very heart of the bigger issue that threatens San Luis Obispo. Consider the increasing frequency of battles over development between neighborhoods and institutions.

Another recent example: Cal Poly has more surplus acreage than almost any other college or university in the nation, yet it has elected to move forward with a large freshman student housing complex scheduled for completion on the corner of Grand Ave. and Slack street. Yes it is college property and we understand the need to expand our educational system resources, but did this have to happen over the objections of the immediate neighborhood when the college has ample other property that it could have considered? In retrospect, it seems that the neighborhood meetings were not intended as a venue to enable neighborhood input to influence the project, but rather to patronize the community, and to measure negative reaction. Once opposition was determined to be manageable, the university “announced” their decision – which when viewed from the rear view mirror makes any expression of concern they may have expressed for the community seem rather superficial.

Simultaneously, our neighborhood was fighting the Johnson Housing project, of which has been tentatively suspended only because of a very immediate and persistent opposition. Even so, this suspension will last only until another new ‘great idea’ marries a developer with the land owner, then we will be in for another round of battles? If the community is not once again willing and able to quickly muster a well orchestrated and tactful argument every time a new proposal arises , eventually a project timeline overtakes the community and the development will will proceed by default. And as you have so correctly pointed out in the case of Sunny Acres, it has little to do with true benefit to the community, the clients which they claim to serve, and completely disregards the impact on the neighborhood. Made possible by cashing in on large sums of grant money (our tax dollars), its purpose is only to benefit the institution that would own and run it, and the developer that would build it. So I would ask, with the emergence from the economic crisis of the last 6 years, accompanying improved economic outlook and renewed interest in investment opportunities, would one expect anything other than for this scenario to continue trending upward?

I am a surprised that in a place like San Luis Obispo, where there has been a long standing culture of environmental sensitivity, family and neighborhood values, quality of education, emphasis on preservation of open space, maintenance of and responsible access to the hillsides and coast, and a conscientiousness of the need to preserve and sustain this beautiful area, that we would be subject to development by agreement in back rooms. Said process virtually disregards the affected neighborhood unless such neighborhood reacts immediately with great opposition.

So the age old question remains, “How does a community protect itself from inside dealing and special interest?” What checks and balances can be employed to ensure that current and future council members, supervisors, and district representatives do not place priority on serving an ex employer rather than the public?

I am very hopeful that the arguments we are presenting will have traction within the community and those that have the authority to stop this project. When this is done however, I think it would be a shame not to carry this issue forward. On behalf of the larger public interest we need a mandate that does not just ‘allow’ community input, but makes it a mandatory initial condition before plans to develop are set in motion.

Ray

Reply
Tim says:

April 29, 2014 at 10:15 pm

What a shame that this site and beautiful building has been vacant for more than 40 years. Good to see that the government is putting it to good use to fill a dire need in the community. Affordable housing is in short supply and little to nothing has been done to fill the need for affordable workforce housing, as well as housing for the disabled, elderly and ill. Good luck, T-MHA – you have served your community well – keep up the good work. Stable housing for all incomes and needs is a necessary component for all stable communities, IMO. As the parent of a disabled adult, I know how the deck is stacked against my son, even though he is smart and willing to work, but because he is different, he will have a difficult time even finding someone to give him a chance to succeed, and not just go on the government dole for the rest of his life.

Reply
Barbara Wolcott says:

April 30, 2014 at 12:08 am

For the last twenty-six years I have lived in San Luis Obispo near the downtown and for much of that time, Transitions-Mental Health Association has been one of my neighbors. In all honesty, when it was announced that a home in this block would become a youth protection site I was not entirely thrilled even though I applaud your commitment to this community need. Transition’s staff and residents have been outstanding neighbors and I’m pleased to have been the recipient of your kindness in helping get my yard work under control when my husband and I were overwhelmed with that need. I’m also thankful for all the warm holiday cards, flowers and general attention that only the warmest and best neighborhoods have in common. I know without a moment’s hesitation that if I need help or friendship, the Transitions staff is here for me, too. Not everyone is in a position to need help but older people are particularly sensitive to noise, disruption and thoughtless neighbors. We cannot afford to cultivate a bunker mentality and having good neighbors is vital to our well-being. I am glad I have a Transitions home a couple doors down from mine.

Reply
Shelly says:

May 1, 2014 at 1:16 am

Barbara makes a wonderful point that was also made by all of us on Dave’s show Monday. Single family homes used to house a small number of clients from a mental health program would be welcomed in our neighborhoods. We currently have a small house for sale on our street that would be a wonderful choice. I believe that the last two commentators are misunderstanding our concern. We object to a large complex for mentally ill patients within our family neighborhood and we object to the short-sighted use of the large, open, natural space and the building.

Currently, the land up there is home to red and grey foxes, the biggest great horned owls I’ve ever seen and the eco-system is incredibly complex on that hill. I believe so much could be done with that land and property to enhance the community and I completely disagree with turning the entire area into a institution-like housing complex that will only serve the needs of a few compared with the number of people it could serve in a different public capacity.

Transitions is hosting an art exhibition called Open Minds later in May. It once again reminds me that art (and nature) are two common threads that connect all humanity. An arts center and nature-preserve would be substantially more compatible with our neighborhoods and would provide something for everyone, including Transitions.

This is not “us” against “you,” Transitions supporters. I hope you can remember that.

Reply
Shelly says:

May 6, 2014 at 6:41 pm

As many of the council members know, the county approved an option for Transitions Mental Health to purchase the Sunny Acres historical building and about an acre of adjacent land above Johnson between the Flora St and Fixlini St neighborhoods. Transitions’ proposal is to create up to 35 units of permanent housing for the most substantially mentally impaired residents of our county – High density housing in a low density area of the city. In addition, our neighborhoods have the largest concentration of school age children and younger in the city. The neighborhoods directly surrounding this building and land are overwhelmingly opposed to this proposed project in a primarily single-family neighborhood. We believe this is a highly incompatible project and we are not going away. We are a mobilized, well-resourced and committed group of neighbors opposed to this project. But, we are also committed to working with the county, city and Transitions to work to achieve the goals of Transitions Mental Health in fulfilling the needs of their clients and to also provide the maximum benefit to the entire community for this property.

I am fascinated by the folks that are supportive of this project. Many of them admittedly have some skin in the game – they work for Transitions, or know Jill or volunteer with agencies that work with the mentally ill or have a mentally disabled friend or family member they feel supportive of. And, yet there seems to be no knowledge of the De-institutionalization movement that happened in the 1970s when research began to show, very clearly, something that direct service providers had known for years – people are not inspired to wellness within large public housing style living or treatment environments.

The De-institutionalization movement was about giving dignity and a sense of normalcy to people who fit into certain marginalized segments of society: the poor, the developmentally disabled, the mentally disabled, orphans, etc… With each of these groups the tendency before the late 1960s and early 1970s was to create large buildings in which they could be housed and/or treated or cared for away from the general population or public. They were the houses, depending on the town you lived in, that were on the hill or the other side of the tracks or down along the river. In all cases they were “other.” Sometimes, attempts were made to make them happy places and in other cases the opposite was true. But, no matter how good or how bad, our estimation as of the late 1960s, and based on the available research was that “otherness” is not humane. Otherness is not life-affirming. Otherness does not allow you to feel worthy and otherness does not inspire you to keep at the hard work of overcoming your limitations.

In the past month I have been hard at work emotionally and spiritually trying to figure out my strong reaction to this potential project. I believe it is a risk to our neighborhoods, I believe it is incompatible with what exists around it. I believe so many services existing in one place to treat one population is problematic. I believe that the property and building should have a more creative use that benefits the entire community. But, I believe something else as well:

I BELIEVE… that the folks that need housing in conjunction with Transitions’ services need what everyone in our neighborhoods already have to some degree or another – a home that is an actual house, a backyard, a front porch, a family environment within the walls of that domicile; mentors within their neighborhood, children to offer smiles and waves, multi-generational relationships, trees and flowers. If our tax dollars and local community donations can fund $5-10 million dollars of building and construction costs to create an institutional style building in any location in our town surely we can get on the cutting-edge, research-based path to purchasing single-family homes throughout our town and other towns throughout the county to provide a quality of life that supports a true path to recovery – from mental illness symptoms, from criminal life, from drug and alcohol abuse and from homelessness…
We MUST be better than the failed past attempts to solve the issues of mental illness and homelessness.

Thank You.

Reply

Leave a Reply to Barbara Wolcott Cancel reply