Homeless Porta-Potties Not Supported by Most OC Supervisors, Spitzer Says

JEFF ANTENORE, Voice of OC Contributing Photographer

Homeless advocates purchased and installed these porta potties near the Santa Ana River in May, before Anaheim city officials removed them.

Not enough Orange County supervisors support portable restrooms at a homeless camp along the Santa Ana River to get them approved, according to Supervisor Todd Spitzer.

“There is not a board majority at this time to support issuing an encroachment permit,” Spitzer told Voice of OC after last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting, where several homeless advocates urged supervisors to waive a $2,000 application fee and allow advocates to install restrooms they purchased.

“I am working on an alternative plan, but I need some more time, and I’m hoping to come back to the board [with it] in a couple weeks,” Spitzer said, later adding he hopes to introduce the alternative idea Wednesday.

The rest of the supervisors didn’t return phone messages asking their positions. They held a closed-door discussion of the issue last Tuesday.

The controversy centers on a large homeless encampment near Angel Stadium and visible from the 57 freeway, which homeless advocates say is a last-resort for people amid a severe shortage of shelter beds and affordable housing.

Homeless people along the river currently lack restroom access at night, and county shelters that have restroom access for those who stay there are either full or close to capacity each night. Given that reality, advocates say people living along the river often go to the bathroom in buckets, bags, and other improvised containers, which risks spreading diseases among homeless people and to county residents who live in homes.

After county supervisors declined requests to place restrooms along the riverbed, advocates raised money on their own and purchased three porta-potties, which they placed along the riverbed until county officials ordered them removed due to lack of a permit.

Advocates have been seeking that permit, and say they’ve met the county’s requirements for a $1-million insurance policy and maintenance agreement for the restrooms.

At last week’s supervisors meeting, several public commenters asked supervisors to waive a $2,000 non-refundable fee to apply for the permit and to allow the porta-potties.

“I don’t understand why it is a health and safety hazard to have porta-potties down there, when they are going [to the bathroom] in the riverbed which drains to our oceans, which I’m pretty sure most people in this room use,” said Huntington Beach resident and activist John Safari.

“It’s more of a health and safety hazard for the entire county for the county to not have restrooms down there.”

Spitzer supported the request, publicly offering to pay the $2,000 fee himself, and holding up what he said was his personal checkbook.

“If the $2,000 is the obstacle to bringing humanity to the riverbed while we figure out what the short and long-term solution is, I will personally pay for it,” Spitzer said.

Spitzer holds up what he described as his personal checkbook as he offered to pay the $2,000 permit fee.

He said he would write the check if advocates provided documentation of the insurance and maintenance agreement “and then we can see see what happens with the county application process, okay? But the $2,000 is not gonna be the obstacle.”

Supervisor Andrew Do pushed back, saying the porta-potties could create other problems.

“Once we have porta-potties out there, then it leads to public safety concerns,” Do said.

“When you have structures that are enclosed at night in areas that are not patrolled by law enforcement…what happens if something bad [happens] in there?”

Additionally, Do said, if the county converts the riverbed into a home – or “domiciliary” – for people, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has some jurisdiction over the riverbed, “may come down and may say, ‘Hey you are violating some kind of regulation as far as the use [of] that space.’”

Supervisor Lisa Bartlett said she agreed “wholeheartedly” with Do, but that a more comprehensive discussion would have to take place among supervisors.

“This is something that has to be addressed by the entire Board of Supervisors, and I know that we have an item on our closed session today,” Bartlett said.

Advocates followed up that day by sending Spitzer’s staff copies of the agreements he requested.

But after the closed session, Spitzer said while he agrees there’s an “immediate” need for restrooms, there simply weren’t enough votes for the permit and he wouldn’t be wasting $2,000 on the application.

Spitzer said he told advocate Mohammed Aly the restroom approval “ain’t gonna happen” without a board vote.

“I’m not gonna waste $2,000,” Spitzer said in an interview Friday. “I’m not gonna issue a check until I know” there are three supervisors’ votes to approve it, Spitzer said.

“I didn’t know the answer to that question until the outcome of that board meeting on Tuesday.”

Aly still wants Spitzer to pay the $2,000 application fee.

“Supervisor Spitzer made an offer to pay the application fee if I produced the service agreement and insurance policy. I accepted his offer by performing my obligations,” Aly told Spitzer’s chief of staff in a text message.

“Spitzer specifically stated in a public meeting that he was offering to pay in an individual rather than official capacity, even physically holding up his personal checkbook. Todd Spitzer is now legally obligated to perform by paying the permit application fee.”

A legal expert also questioned whether the supervisors were legally allowed to discuss the restrooms situation in closed session.

“The Brown Act limits the events that can trigger a closed session to discuss a litigation threat, and none of them seems to fit here,” said Terry Francke, general counsel of the open-government group Californians Aware, in an email.

“ ‘Someone might sue us’ is a straight ticket to unlawful secrecy,” he wrote.

The County County’s office declined to comment through a spokeswoman.

Spitzer, meanwhile, says he was advised by county counsel that the bathroom situation is related to ongoing lawsuits about the riverbed encampment. However, none of the lawsuits are known to involve restroom access issues.

There’s also a dispute over who gets to decide whether to allow the restrooms.

While Spitzer said it’s up to supervisors, county staff say it would be a staff-level decision.

“OC Development Services staff review and approve encroachment permit applications. They review each encroachment permit request against the applicable existing County, state and federal regulations,” said Jennifer Nentwig, a spokeswoman for the county CEO’s office.

Meanwhile, the advocates say they will continue to fight for restroom access along the riverbed.

Nick Gerda covers county government and Santa Ana for Voice of OC. You can contact him at ngerda@voiceofoc.org.

  • verifiedsane

    Approved: Santa Ana riverbed homeless will get toilets, showers for now, while supervisors plan to move them out

  • verifiedsane

    Anaheim, County say don’t drop off homeless at new shelter

    Befuddling! A homeless shelter that the homeless need to have a special referral or reservation to use? Doesn’t this seem kind of ridiculous, and pretty much undermines the whole purpose of providing a HOMELESS Shelter..

    “Mercy House only accepts referrals, there are no walk-ins allowed.”
    “We have a process and can’t accept any homeless people outside of our network,”

    • LFOldTimer

      I agree. Bizarre.

      Now I guess getting a bed in a homeless shelter is a political appointment.

      Send $50 in unmarked bills to your district supervisor and you too can get a 3-month stay at the Kraemer Place shelter. lol.

      I wonder if the BoS intends to conduct interviews of homeless applicants for a cot and 3 hots at Kraemer Place?

      Question #1: Are you a Democrat or a Republican and are you registered to vote in the OC? lol.

  • Tim Houchen

    It is shameful that we are discussing outhouses for the homeless rather than permanent and affordable housing for them.
    The real story here should be that on June 13, 2017 the BOS will hear public comments on the proposed county budget for FY 2017-18 and there is absolutely no funding for housing to end homelessness in that current proposal.
    Porta-potties is something that can be discussed any time in the future. The funding for providing the homeless a path to ending homelessness is an issue that insists the immediate attention of everyone.

    • LFOldTimer

      Tim. perhaps you could explain. What exactly is “affordable” housing for the homeless? Most homeless are destitute. Otherwise they wouldn’t be homeless. Are you referring to more shelters like the one at Kraemer Place in Anaheim? If so I agree. We should have more shelters so homeless people don’t have to live in the elements or under bridges or on the riverbed in tents. I think every city in OC should have its own homeless shelter.

      However I think most would agree that the county can’t afford to give every homeless person their own home or apartment. That would be a huge taxpayer burden. And it would draw homeless people from every surrounding state and county into Orange County and turn into an unmanageable situation.

      What the homeless need more than anything are job training, jobs and mental healthcare. We’ve got 300,000 illegal foreigners in Orange County who compete with our underclass for jobs. And it suppresses the living wage for citizens and for legal immigrants. And it causes rents to increase. If this state can afford to give illegal foreigners free health care under Medi-Cal it should certainly be able to treat our mentally ill citizens who wander the streets at night and eat from garbage cans.

      But nobody seems to want to talk about the factors that cause homelessness. They just want to throw more money down the rathole by forming new committees with bureaucrats who collect 6-figure compensations. Look at what a worthless program the “End Homelessness in 10 Years” was. I can only imagine the millions of dollars wasted on beard scratchers in the county think tank who were hired to figure out a solution.

      So I’m a little confused over what the overall goal is. Just building affordable homes will not solve the problem.

      Perhaps you could elaborate further.

      • verifiedsane

        We need to develop affordable housing for the working poor first; before they are joining the ranks of the without home population….though building more shelters would create a much needed & limited band-aid….it’s not the end solution either….just pouring money into a dysfunctional government bureaucratic sinkholes won’t end homelessness.

        We need to face the reality that we are going to have a growing without home population going forward…It’s not rocket science to look around the nation at almost every major urban area to see this problem is growing and a much bigger problem than the political class can or wish to comprehend.

        We need to wisely treat the symptoms leading to homelessness to slow the distasteful trickle that’s growing into a toxic rushing river…these “end homelessness in ten years” hogwash plans are just more of the continued political hyperbole used to kick the can down the bumpy road to nowhere.

        In my humble opinion, effective intervention starts with developing a plan for each downtrodden individual as an individual; as there are no short cuts to this kind of hope, need, & dignity driven intervention approach. Let us face the hard truths that some of these disenfranchised can/want/embrace a helping hand back to a mainstream functional existence within our society, while others are so entrenched in the outcast/disenfranchised existence/lifestyle; they may never come back). That’s just the cold reality! When I read these silly “end homelessness plans in so and so years”, I tend to smile and shake my head in a stunned disbelief.

        So many comments here about all kinds of supposed big plan solutions and government interventions, and yet we have this large population of actual human beings living each day out of makeshift tent communities that are not being provided or provided access the most basic sanitation facilities provided by advocates that would not cost the public a tax payer a dime.

        The problem with the BoS is they like to talk and talk and talk (mainly in backrooms, while kicking the can down the road and under the bridge) while politicizing these important public health/societal problems for their own personal political benefit…the political animals don’t want to create real solutions, they want to create big press stories and garner attention for issues they exploit for their own gain.

      • Mike Robbins

        Yes it cost more to leave them on the streets than to get them an apartment in Irvine!
        But many people that end up on the streets cannot afford the housing. There is supposed to be 15% affordable housing built into every new project. So if they build 2,000 new apartments then 5% should be $800 a month 5% $1,000 per month and 5% $1,200 a month. Then many people like those that work at Disney or in the resort industry for $10 to $15 a hour do not become homeless. Especially important since Disney is expanding in the near future.
        Or we can just build a tent city next to Disney for their employees?…
        Of course when the police arrest the homeless people for being homeless take their stuff and then put them on the streets with nothing then that is just murder and needs to stop also.
        Complicated issue but needs more attention from the BOS and city councils across the OC.

        • LFOldTimer

          “Yes it cost more to leave them on the streets than to get them an apartment in Irvine!”

          Could you provide a financial analysis to support your claim? Otherwise it makes no sense to me.

          I agree that the developers should be mandated to build affordable housing as part of their home developments and not just pay the cities off to avoid the 15% policy. But “affordable” housing is not “free” housing. There is a difference, you know.

          If the county provided each and every homeless person with his own home or apartment are you aware of the obvious unintended consequences?

          You would have 10’s of thousands of more homeless coming to the OC from surrounding counties and states to get their free apartment or home too.

          Why would that get buried in your analysis???

          Could you name one other county that provides all their homeless with a free apartment or home?

          Let’s start there.

    • justanon

      You are so right. Study after study shows that it is much more cost effective to provide permanent housing for the chronically homeless (our riverbed, civic center, freeway underpass dwellers) than to let them languish on the streets.

      “At that conference, a founder of the Housing First philosophy, Sam Tsemberis, told him that chronically homeless people cost the government a lot of money when they’re living on the street, because of services like emergency room visits and jail time.

      HUD estimates that annual cost as between $30,000 and $50,000 per person.

      Housing them simply costs a lot less.”


      Unfortunately many can’t-see-the-forest-for-the-trees, they don’t want to help addicts or anyone else they deem “undeserving”, but these people cost us the most money to take care of and also wreak havoc on the institutions we would all like to enjoy, like our libraries, civic centers, parks and river trails.
      We are paying a much higher price in order to ‘punish’ that small percentage of folks who don’t contribute than we would if we just accepted the fact that there is and always will be a small percentage of the population that will always be dependent. That is not to say that some of these people can’t be helped, but we shouldn’t make helping them conditional on their reforming themselves because that might not be possible.
      In short, we need to stop investing in the cutting-off-our-nose-to-spite-our-face philosophy of many conservatives and just bite-the-bullet and help these folks.

      It will SAVE US MONEY in the long run, not to mention the fact that it will reduce crime and improve our public spaces.

      • Tim Houchen

        The HUD estimate that you quoted is a national average. The estimated average cost for a chronically homeless person in Orange County in Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) is $51,587 annually in comparison to an estimated average cost of $85,631 for chronically homeless living on the streets or in emergency shelters here in OC. The higher costs here in OC are based on a much higher median cost for housing than the national average, but is still consistent with the national average that shows that putting a chronically homeless person in housing costs about 40% less than leaving them on the streets. https://assets.adobe.com/link/46b347f1-c6b5-4aa7-664a-59413f82bb62?section=activity_public&page=3
        Thank you for bringing this to the attention of all Orange County taxpayers who should be aware that the upcoming county budget FY 2017-18 proposes no funding for housing to end homelessness which essentially means no end to visible homeless around our county any time soon. Please read my article regarding this issue which has not yet hit the media, but will blow up beginning in June.

        • LFOldTimer

          I would have to see the quoted costs broken down item by item to make any sense of their claims. Otherwise, they’re meaningless. Why would I believe HUD or any of these other government agencies who profit off the poor and the destitute?

          Theoretically, if the OC provided free individual apartments or homes for the homeless – how many homeless people from surrounding counties or states would come to the OC to take advantage of that generous benefit?

          Has HUD or any government agency done a study on that (w/ applicable estimates) and the opined on the unintended consequences that may result?

          If not, why not???

          This is a very complicated problem with many sides to the story. We should examine all sides before drawing conclusions.

          • verifiedsane

            Nothing changes with the “Socialist” play book. This has been well established/documented going back to LBJ’s supposed war on poverty and the failure of this pseudo socialist agenda being propagated in failed or failing nation states around the world….the free stuff/give away/safe space promoters are for creating a permanent impoverished under class that are completely dependent upon government handouts for their existence. They are little different than the drug dealer giving away/or discounting their product until the person/addict is hooked; then they own them.

            This socialist flawed thinking and approach has failed in the past, is failing presently, and will continue to fail going forward. The so-called progressive’s like to portray themselves as caring social justice warriors, and yet the results of their policies they so passionately propagate creates more shackled impoverishment that is imposed upon the unsuspecting/disenfranchised by the self appointed disingenuous, delusional, and overly intrusive Fascist/tyrannical “correct think” ruling class.

          • LFOldTimer

            Oh yes. LBJ and “The Great Society” to win the war on poverty lol. I remember it well. What a tremendous failure. Poverty in America increased exponentially since that time. Trillions spent and poverty rates soared as a result.

            It’s like the old axiom goes: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”.

            Democrats would rather “give” than “teach”.

            I am all for helping a man when he is down. I have no problem with building homeless shelters scattered equally throughout the county

            The mentally ill need treatment and no one should have to live under a bridge unless it’s done voluntarily. Homeless shelters should consist of barracks style living. That way a large group of homeless people could be fed, provided resources and monitored for progress. Pretty simple.

            But giving each homeless person his or her own home or apartment is lunacy. If these folks were able to manage their own lives and live independently they wouldn’t be homeless in the first place. This isn’t brain science. Plus, I simply don’t believe the numbers that apparently claim giving a homeless person a free apartment would save money. I asked Tim for a further explanation and he didn’t respond. Oh well. I tried.

            You see, government agencies THRIVE on poverty and ignorance. HUD and all the rest feed off of destitute people. If somehow we won the war on poverty tomorrow HUD and the other parasites would have to shut down their operations. Consequently, they ensure that won’t happen. They continue feeding the perpetual beast instead of trying to slay it.

            Btw, I don’t know if you’re aware – but LBJ was one of the biggest lechers to ever walk the White House halls. Woman who worked there would constantly complain about being groped by him. I guess JFK taught him well. lol. Could you imagine being groped by that ugly slob?

            Naturally it wasn’t widely reported by the media. After all – he was a Democrat.

          • verifiedsane

            “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” – Sir John Dalberg-Acton 🙂

          • LFOldTimer

            Oh Verified. Did you happen to see the news of the Kathy Griffin press conference earlier today. She was whimpering and crying because the Trump family had the gall to express their verbal shock that Griffin held up a fake and bloody-red Donald Trump head that had been decapitated. Now she blames the Trumps for her ruined career!!! LOL!!!

            What a lunatic. ha. But a typical liberal snowflake. It’s always somebody else’s fault!

            Hillary and Kathy should rent a room. They have so much in common!!!! 🙂

          • verifiedsane

            Reminds me of an ignored diaper wearing provocateur we deal with here in the comment section…. 🙂

          • justanon

            Medicare and Medicaid were part of LBJ’s “Great Society” and they were and are “Great”.
            I wonder if our resident hypocrite and bigot LFOldTimer would like to weigh in and tell us whether he’s a “Great Society” beneficiary vis-a-vis Medicare???

            I bet not, lol!!!

          • verifiedsane

            Kathy Griffin is on ignore

          • LFOldTimer

            Claptrap on ignore!!!

            Nothing follows……….

          • justanon

            I’ll take that as a yes. How stupid to belittle a program that has not only benefited millions, but benefitted you personally. Like I’ve said before; self-awareness is not your strong suit, lol.

          • LFOldTimer

            Claptrap on ignore.

            Nothing follows………..

          • justanon

            Funny, you say “Democrats would rather “give” than “teach”.” yet YOU would rather “take” and then “whine”, hilarious!

          • LFOldTimer

            Claptrap on ignore.

            Nothing follows………

  • LFOldTimer

    Oh, now Todd is branding himself as our new toilet hero. What grandstand won’t this poser climb up on?

    Yo, Todd. Why don’t you write a check to reimburse the county taxpayers for the legal fees that were spent on the Wahoo Fish Taco email case that you lost??? How much did we have to spend on that frivolous defense? When you write the check to pay us back for that absurd litigation which attempted to deny an open and transparent government – I’ll start to take you seriously.

    And why aren’t you backing Supervisor Nelson’s proposal to put temporary 200-bed homeless shelters (WITH TOILETS) on UNUSED county land in Irvine and Huntington Beach??? Afraid it might turn constituents against you in your future run for the DA’s seat??? Supervisor Nelson offered a VERY valid and temporary solution to the homeless problem. And you DECLINED to give your approval!!!

    One problem with putting toilets on the riverbed is that the county has already deemed the riverbed an illegal camping zone for the safety of the public. Putting toilets there were contradict that county policy. Putting toilets there would CONDONE camping on the riverbed. If one of the homeless campers fell into the river or fell out of a tree or was attacked by a wild animal and killed – you can bet your bippy there would be a million dollar plus lawsuit lodged against the county taxpayers.

    Your positions are very inconsistent, Todd. Just like your positions on the illegal informant scandal.

    Start being REAL for once and we might consider supporting some of your recommendations. Stop being a phony and self-serving politician – one of your keynote characteristics.

  • verifiedsane

    Fact: There is a large without home population currently living along the river bed.

    The people and politicians can debate whether they should be living there or not?

    Fact: Human beings need to defecate.

    Once again the BoS are not smelling the p**p through the trees. It is both inhumane and creating a public health hazard by not allowing these temporary restrooms…..The Sups need to take one giant step into reality…but it seems that those that live in castles on hilltops looking down upon the peasants, are just so detached from the rest of us, they can’t even understand the simplest concepts of basic humanity and decency.

    It would not cost the county a dime of tax payer monies to grant a temporary approval.

    Fact: advocates raised money on their own and
    purchased three porta-potties, which they placed along the riverbed
    until county officials ordered them removed due to lack of a permit.

    Fact: Advocates have been seeking that permit,
    and say they’ve met the county’s requirements for a $1-million insurance
    policy and maintenance agreement for the restrooms.

    Fact: At last week’s supervisors meeting,
    several public commenters asked supervisors to waive a $2,000
    non-refundable fee to apply for the permit and to allow the

    • Stvhzm

      The county has been moving these people into this area for the last two or three years. Just talk to any of them. Or use the trail for recreation. (We don’t anymore) and you will frequently see law enforcement vehicles from all over Orange County dropping them off with new tents tucked under their arms. The county obviously has a plan. I believe that plan is to force these unfortunates into the public awareness. Watch for your sales tax to climb to around 9% in their name. Shameful.

      • Stvhzm

        We’ve sold our home because of this and are happily taking our lives and our disposable income to another county where the local government is not in the practice of manipulating a small problem into a large one with their fiscal interests in mind over the health and safety of its residents. Say goodbye to the climbing property values in central OC.

      • LFOldTimer

        If what you claim is true we’re getting contradictory messages.

        The county just got though declaring the riverbed a no camping zone and moving people out. If the cops are CURRENTLY moving people in someone needs to snap a few photos of the activity, bring the evidence to the next supe’s meeting and provide a 3 minute testimony.

        There is perfectly good UNUSED county land in Irvine and Huntington Beach where 400 homeless could live temporarily. TOILETS INCLUDED!

        Let them live amongst the high-brows and maybe that would spark some interest in finding some PERMANENT solutions to the homeless problem.

        If they did it to Anaheim – what should make Irvine and Huntington Beach immune from being part of the homeless solution?

        • Stvhzm

          You’re quite correct. The messages are contradictory. What the county has been doing for the past several years has been to congregate these people into this area. Now they are in the process of forcing them into conflict with area home and business owners. By forbidding advocates to put bathrooms on their property they are passively forcing these poor people to try to use facilities at local businesses that provide facilities for their paying customers and making homeless people who would rather not attract attention to themselves come into direct conflict with the public at large. Remember, pointing a camera at a police officer, no matter what he is doing, is a risky behavior.

          • LFOldTimer

            The answer is to quickly facilitate the use of the UNUSED county property in Irvine and Huntington Beach to temporarily house 400 homeless people. But nobody other than Nelson wants to talk about it. But there’s your solution. Why ignore a perfectly valid solution, even if it’s temporary?

            Don’t you understand that if the county put these porta-potties on the riverbed they would be violating their own ‘no camping’ ordinance by condoning the homeless to remain there? County sanctioned toilets would CONDONE the living facilities there. And it would ripen the possibility for a huge lawsuit against the country in the event that a homeless person got killed or seriously injured while living on the riverbed. Do you understand that, or not?

            “Remember, pointing a camera at a police officer, no matter what he is doing, is a risky behavior.”

            That’s nonsense. As long as you’re not interfering in an active police investigation you can photograph the police just as you could photograph the general public in open public places. The police are not immune from being photographed. Who told you it’s “risky behavior”? Do you think we live in North Korea?

            Look, if you’re really concerned about the police allegedly dropping off the homeless equipped with tents at the riverbed – then do something about it.

          • Stvhzm

            I did. I’m moving. Photograph the police yourself.

          • LFOldTimer


            As I figured.

          • Stvhzm

            The no camping ordinance has been in place for at least the last ten years that I have been using the trail. As little as two years ago, aside from a small number of people quietly living under some of the underpasses there was little notivable homeless activity on the river trail. Now it’s several thousand concentrated into the area between Katella and 1st street. The county has had ample opportunity to deal with this. After watching them exacerbate the situation they are now crying that they don’t know what to do. Draw your own conclusions.

          • LFOldTimer

            I don’t frequent the area. But widespread news reports indicate that the county has moved people out from the riverbank and moved their belongings to a storage facility in South County. Are you saying that was all fake news?

            Again, you fail to comment. But there is UNUSED county land in both Irvine and Huntington Beach that could temporarily shelter 400 homeless people. Why aren’t you fighting for that if you’re so concerned about their welfare? Just curious?

          • Stvhzm

            I don’t really care where they move them to. I have observed them being moved to this particular area for the last two or three years. The fact that it was policy to move them there can be verified by meeting some of them and asking them how they got there. The news about them being forcibly moved was not fake. The fact that they were concentrated there as a matter of policy was not reported on at all. Nor was the timing of the county forcing them to move ever questioned. They were put into place first and then forced onto areas that the public would not fail to notice them. Currently, our BOS is reviewing plans to place either temporary (hah) or permanent tax measures into place using this situation they have created to justify them. N’cest pas?

          • LFOldTimer

            I don’t think a homeless tax is going to fly in OC with the BoS happily willing to spend $350,000,000 of our tax dollars for brand new government offices for all the public trough feeders.

            They can try. But I think the push back would be enormous and might end some political careers.

            A public vote on a homeless tax in OC would result in a 60/40 disapproval.

            This isn’t San Francisco, Marin County and it’s certainly not Berkeley. It’s Orange County. Hopefully the supes are smart enough to realize it.

          • Stvhzm

            I agree. That they were trying to create a situation intolerable to the public in order to justify just such a tax increase was my point all along.

          • LFOldTimer

            Who knows? You may be on to something. I sure wouldn’t put it past them.

            Thanks for the discussion.

          • Cynthia Ward

            I admit I missed something, what property does the County already own that Shawn wants to use? And is it already set up with utilities/plumbing etc?

            As far as Anaheim, back in the 90s when Disney scored $500MM in taxpayer funded bond money to fund improvements for their highly profitable expansion, they were obligated to kick in 500 new units of affordable housing to offset the increase in poverty wage employment. Where are those units?

          • LFOldTimer

            I read that Nelson asked staff what county land was available for potential sites for temporary homeless shelters. Apparently staff came back with unused county properties in Santa Ana, Irvine and Huntington Beach, each large enough for 200-bed temporary shelters – likely tents or such. Sure beats sleeping under a bridge or on the riverbed. They could use porta-potties and portable lighting.

            I just think it’s unfair to unload the homeless burden on Anaheim – even though I don’t live there. Other cities should help carry the burden of dealing with the homeless population. Until more people feel the pain I don’t anticipate any long term solutions. Only tourniquets to stop the bleeding. We need to deal with the causes of homelessness. Not the symptoms.

            I’m no fan of Disney. I’ll never visit their park again. If no one holds their feet to the fire for their former commitments why would they voluntarily comply?

            It’s not just Disney. The other city councils let the developers get away with strong-armed robbery.

      • Mike

        Just curious do you read the news?
        Google search homeless deaths orange county
        Google search cost of homelessness in orange county
        Google search mobile showers for the homeless
        information will set you free – come and help now

        • LFOldTimer

          The county government is rich. They have a $6.2 billion dollar budget. They are going to build brand new county government buildings (totally unnecessary) at a cost of $350,000,000 to the taxpayers. We don’t need another stinking tax to help the homeless. If they try that nonsense in OC there’s going to be a lot of fallout. Just because LA did it it doesn’t mean we have to follow them like the Pied Piper. The county has a ton of money to help the homeless. NO MORE TAXES!!!!! Moonbeam Brown just approved a $52 BILLION dollar gas and car registration tax. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

          • Mike

            Yes they have $1 billion in discretionary funding in the OC. Tell the supervisors to kick it in and fund the 10 year homeless project. But also they must make 15% of the new apartments and condos affordable housing to keep people from becoming homeless in the tight housing scenario in the OC. We have fought to stop the construction of thousands of new condos and apartments without 15% lower income available.
            Tell the Board.
            Come and rant to the Board as we need good passionate speakers. June 13th 8 am at the BOS.

          • Tim Houchen

            OK. That’s what I was looking for. Carry on.

        • Tim Houchen

          What, no mention of the budget or the rally?