County to Open 'Project 50' Office on the Corner of 5th and Main

UGH! I am torn about this issue...I see both sides and now my mind is phucking with me annd playing with a quote from ex-Sec. of Defense, Donald Rumsfield: "You [live downtown] with the [downtown] you have, not the [downtown] you might want or wish to have at a later time."

I've been a regular visitor downtown for 20 years and am now a resident. So I too want to see it get better in a way that reflects what I hope would be a balancing out of what my wants and needs are: various restaurants and bars open late, stores catering to my style/taste and services for my needs...but at the same time, these ideas of mine are in the minority compared to what the majority of visitors downtown want/need.

Someone might be able to learn me, but I see very few reasons for putting the administrative offices for this project at this particular location and not a block or two east of this location. Given that the project is not meant to curb general homelessness on skid row, but to save the lives of those teetering on the brink of death, using this important piece of commercial property to service 27-50 people seems unnecessary and wasteful.

While I generally have a mistrust of self-congratulatory public agencies, I think in this case you can feel strongly about solving the homelessness problem, while still yearning for a yuppie friendly downtown.

This is the reason skid row is the way it is.

I was all for the project 50- and still am all for it- but the reason many people fail in housing is because the services are not on site. I was at a meeting where the issue was brought up by myself and i explained that project 50 would fail if the clients, who are spread out throughout skid row housing trust hotels , would have to trek far from their housing for the services. It was explained to me that the case managers would be visiting these clients etc.. I am still a bit perturbed that we still seem to be creating off site services for these who are supposedly in permanent supportive housing.

I asked at the meeting where these clients would be housed and they are not all going to be in the Pershing Hotel.

I believe that it is incumbent upon all residents downtown, including those of us who already reside in long term subsidized housing to cry foul. We should be demanding that all services be conducted onsite in all of those hotels that will be housing those in project 50. Skid Row will remain skid row until we decide that the old way of doing things should not be done. Of site services should not be the way to go.

Demand that the services be onsite. Not just in one place. We deserve to know which hotels are participating and which hotels are providing the services on site. And how this program will operate to ensure that the clients needs are met and not depend on the clients having to trek from their residences all over skid row to the service site. After all this is tax payer money , isn't it?

Demand onsite supportive services for the residents of skid row!! Demand it, don't ask for it. Demand it!!!!

Don hits the nail on the head--I'm all in favor of Project 50, but doe it really require street-front retail space that might better be used to help/serve the rest of the downtown community (housed and otherwise)? That space has enormous potential--couldn't P50 be just as easily accommodated across the street in the ostensibly 'retail' spaces on the first floor of the parking ramp?

I am not speaking about location. What I am speaking about is the fundamental issue of how to provide services and where. The underlying oversight is that we expeditiously are looking for ways to solve our homeless problem without providing the on site supportive services , or rather, having the places to do so, but not having the funding which would provide the services on site .

I also wonder how much of the decision to lace the services off site was based on the fears of professionals not wanting to venture into the hear to skid row east of main street. I don't even believe we should place those offices under the parking structure. We should demand that services be provided on site at the different hotels where the clients are being housed.

Don- I completely agree with you! I have been involved for a couple of years with OPCC in Santa Monica, mainly because a dear friend of mine is the board chair, and the difference between the way services are provided there (all onsite)and here are dramatic, and according to my observation, at least, result in dramatically different outcomes for those served. (Not to mention that OPCC offers a much broader array of both support and services, and more flexibility in accessing them, etc.) I have felt so strongly that OPCC is such a vastly better way of doing things, that I often carry their cards when I'm walking around, and hand them out to people I talk to in my neighborhood that are homeless, and have driven people over there now and then. It seems it might behoove some of the social service providers downtown to learn from what looks to be a successful model for applying solutions that actually work to a very complex problem.

This is one homeless program that may actually be effective in getting some homeless off the street because it is so focused so I don't have problem with it. I am generally not happy with the massive concentration of homeless organizations downtown due to the fact that it draws all homeless to one small area from the entire megalopolis region It does not make sense nor is it fair to concentrate all homeless in one tiny area.

One thing about the Project 50 though. At the rate of 50 homeless, it will take 500 years to help the tens of thousands of homeless and get them off the street.

Firstly, the economics of providing services on-site at all supportive housing projects is not possible unless there are approximately 100 units or more. The depth of services for Project 50 is significant because of the high acuity of the clientele. So the sharing of services for multiple sites, which are smaller than 100 units is critical, especially in an era when social service resources are dwindling. For those who want to tuck the homeless out of site, I ask why should the most vulnerable of our residents not be included in a community that is clearly being improved? Instead can we not improve homeless conditions along with the business community, the artists, etc? I have seen the new site which will house the Project 50 services and let me tell you-it looks a thousand times nicer than when it was the market. Let me also set the record straight, the people running the Project 50 services are no strangers to Skid Row and the inference that they don't want to go into Skid Row east of Main street is ludicrous and offensive.

It seems we have a disagreement. The Rainbow Apartments does not have more than 100 units , neither does the St. George hotel and they both provide onsite supportive services.

What it seems to me is that there is passion , but not facts. I need facts . Back up the argument with facts that state that providing onsite services is not cost effective. Every supportive housing advocate I have heard from in open forums claim that permanent supportive housing is cost effective. And I will get those facts.

The argument about offensive is a straw man argument. Skid Row Housing Trust operates the Rainbow hotel and it has onsite supportive services and it only has 87 units , last I checked the st. George hotel only had 86 units. We know what happened there.

The point is that placing these administrative offices in that location is only for the convenience of the employees. We have had this sort of offsite system in place for years and it has not solved the problem at all.

People have had to trek to downtown mental health. We are doing the same thing here. Creating the services off site and hoping that the people in these programs decide one day to trek to the administrative offices and what if they don't are they penalized from their housing. I will show you articles from the St George Hotel where residents praised the onsite services for keeping them inside, now we change the recipe , for what, for convenience sake for the employees if you ask me.

Los Angeles has this reputation of building services around employees instead of clients. This has to end if you want to make a dent in the problem.

I know of which I speak and many people in skid row who blog online will tell you the same thing.

We must demand onsite supportive services!!!

I never said that permanent supportive housing is not cost effective. On the contrary. In my opinion, it is the most cost effective solution to homelessness. I only said that in order to make it ecomonically feasible to have ALL of the intensive services on-site day in and day out, there should be APPROXIMATELY 100 units, which the St. George and Rainbow are close to in number of units. In order to develop more supportive housing for homeless, we must also develop smaller buildings to accomodate the vast need, in which case having some of the services at a site nearby (with care coordination on-site) or having mobile services will be necessary in terms of economics. The reason that the services for Project 50 were put where they were was NOT because of the need of the employees, it was because it was the only site that Skid Row Housing Trust had to offer. Ask Mike Alvidrez the facts.

Now a real example of a straw man argument. gotta love it!!!

The the truth is that the services in skid row are geared towards the convenience of the employees and the office hours of those there.

This way of doing things has to stop.

Demand Onsite supportive services!

So with gas prices the way they are , and having to provide for drivers of these mobile services , etc? This way is cost effective? Not at all.

This is not being cost effective it is about convenience as always for those who come her only from 9-5.

Justifying half way approaches to doing things is not cost effective.

Most of the hotels in skid row have approximately 100 units. The documentation is out there. The point is it is about convenience. From a capitol standpoint , yes , it is cost effective , but in the longterm it will be another abject failure. You will be expecting the clients to come to their appointments on time. Professionals who have other clients to see have too.People who suffer with physical limitations along with mental problems will have a tough time. I know of which I speak. We expect to be punitive in our dealings with clients and make it convenient for the administrative people. These services should be made convenient for the clients.

It has been done in skid row this way for way too long. This has to end.

We need to have these services onsite!

Demand Onsite supportive services.

In order to develop more supportive housing for homeless, we must also develop smaller buildings to accommodate the vast need,

In the above statement are some worries . I haven't heard that there will be smaller structures built downtown to accommodate the homeless. I have my services off site. I see my doctors on the west side of Los Angeles. But there have been instances in which I couldn't make it to a psyche appointment because I was physically ill and missed the appointment to get the prescription.

What worries me is that it sounds like someone wants to make this the place for all of the supportive services. Unfortunately, I use the example of Downtown Mental Health , which did not stop these people from being on the streets, or any other services provided off site from housing.

We have to do something different. Unless someone is trying to make this the site for all services in the city?

In which case we are back at the same policy of containment.

Demand On site supportive services!

Arent services like these offered in OFFICES ABOVE ground level retail instead of INSIDE them?!

This is a CORNER-ground-level retail spot. It is meant to serve a very high volume of pedestrians isnt it?! Isnt that its purpose?

One thing about the Project 50 though. At the rate of 50 homeless, it will take 500 years to help the tens of thousands of homeless and get them off the street.

You know, Project 50 is not the first and only organization to deal with homelessness. Project 50 is not the one designated to carry the burden of homelessness.

There are many other organizations, each doing their part in the continuum of care.