June
28, 2014
The
Union of Grass Valley
By Dave Brooksher
In a report released Friday,
the Nevada County grand jury said panhandlers, vagrants and transients have
been identified as a blight on our community.
The homeless population in
Nevada County has obviously grown, they say, and the apparent criminal element
and behavior within that population is costing law enforcement and other local
agencies.
The grand jury went on to
recommend a multiagency effort to enforce existing laws and reduce the number
of homeless encampments in the community.
They’ve also advised the county
to direct its Information Technology Department to implement tracking and
reporting systems to enable city and county departments to determine how much
money is being spent on problems associated with the homeless community.
Based on statements from one
unnamed interviewee “who is extremely experienced in working with this
population,” the grand jury found as fact that:
“— Most PVTs (panhandlers, vagrants and
transients) are males with drug and alcohol addiction problems.
— They do not take
responsibility for their condition and do not seek treatment.
— Their behavior is not healthy
to themselves or our community.
— Their camps resemble a third
world site with dangerous trash and potential health issues for the community
as a whole.
— The majority of PVTs are not
willing to be rehabilitated.”
The identity and qualifications
of that interviewee were not included in the grand jury’s report.
The report did, however,
include several attempts to quantify the homeless community’s financial impact
on the local economy.
“Retail businesses have
incurred losses in excess of $200,000 due to theft, vandalism and shoplifting,”
the report said.
Four Grass Valley businesses,
three of which are located near a known homeless camp, estimated their annual
losses due to vandalism and theft at $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 and $100,000.
The report does not, however,
include any evidence proving the link between these losses and the presence of
homeless people, panhandlers, vagrants or transients.
Hard data on costs to local
government agencies was not available in most cases.
The Nevada County Consolidated
Fire District estimated that calls for service associated with transients cost
the district roughly $90,000 per year.
The fire district logged
between 250-300 calls related to “PVT activities” in 2013 involving medical
calls and fires in encampments, Dumpsters or abandoned houses.
Estimates for local law
enforcement were provided, but they were derived by multiplying the number of
calls for service by the average number of hours required for each call and the
average hourly salary for responding officers.
Real accounting of the costs
incurred by law enforcement was unavailable.
The report did provide
information about the number of calls for service received.
In 2013, Grass Valley logged
597 calls for service that used the words “panhandler, transient, homeless or squatter.”
The Nevada County Sheriff’s Office received 138 calls for service involving the
word “transient.”
The Nevada City Police
Department provided the most comprehensive numbers in the report. It estimates
the annual cost of responding to homeless issues at $36,400.
That was based on the average
labor rate per hour, time spent investigating each call and booking any
suspects arrested and an average of 15-20 calls per week “under the transient
category.”
The grand jury’s list of facts
also says that unidentified officials, business owners and law enforcement
officers stated they believe the efforts to help homeless people in our
community are actually making things worse.
“Officials stated that the
community is too accommodating to the PVT population, which attracts them to
the area,” according to the report. “A variety of elected officials, business
owners and law enforcement personnel agree that some feeding and shelter
programs attract additional PVTs by accommodating their needs.”
Cindy Maple, executive director
of Hospitality House in Grass Valley, disagrees.
“I think that we are a part of
the solution; we are working every day to get people stable and housed,” Maple
said. “I think without providing the services that we provide, the situation in
the community would be much worse.”
Maple says that due to limited
resources, Hospitality House focuses on helping locals. Out-of-county residents
are only taken in under special circumstances.
“The only time we would take
them is if they’re fragile, if they’re potentially older or if it’s a family
escaping a DV (domestic violence) situation,” Maple said.
Maple does, however, agree with
the grand jury’s assertion that the homeless population is growing.
“They’re still feeling the
effects of the economic downturn,” she said.
“We have a lot of folks who are
working part time and not earning a living wage. It’s not enough to afford
housing. We had a person recently collect cans to pay for medication. It’s
really rough out there for people.”
They are not out-of-towners
coming to Nevada County to take advantage of local services, however. Maple
said growth in the local homeless population is primarily fueled by local
residents who lose their homes.
“What this report misses is
looking at the root cause of the panhandling problem,” Maple said.
The grand jury report also
faults the Nevada County Community Development Agency for not deploying code
compliance officers to homeless encampments more frequently. The absence of
sewer services, clean water or proper housing is a violation of county code
that they say could be more vigorously enforced.
The CDA did not respond to The
Union’s request for comment by deadline.
To contact Staff Writer Dave
Brooksher, email dbrooksher@theunion.com or call 530-477-4230.
No comments:
Post a Comment