I have a bone to pick, with San Mateo Councilperson/sometime ex-Mayor
Claire Mack, whose series of "tirades", in local papers such as this one, by
way of "news releases" concerning the North San Mateo community in one way
or another (children's school openings, etc.), about every month or so (she
apparently does have good PR), have just about been enough for this
essentially quite conservative person to put up with without a proper
response thereto, concerning her allegations and insinuations. Her latest
comments were "buried" in a piece about the North San Mateo neighborhood's
"reaction" and feelings about the winter homeless shelter, sponsored by
Samaritan House. And therefore stands the rub, because invariably she does use her very
public position to attack Samaritan House, its services and its mission of
service to the underprivileged (certainly not Ms. Mack), the disadvantaged
and the homeless, albeit always with the "cry" that Sam House's very
existence is somehow a threat and a danger to the North San Mateo community.
One of her recent tirades condemned Sam House for perpetrating an "empire"
within the community (HeadStart programs, tutorials, medical services and
otherwise for the indigent and low/no income citizenry is an "empire"?).
Another tirade condemned Sam House for being a "magnet" in attracting
"undesireables", who would threaten the community merely by their passing
through it (urination, defecation, graffiti, and vandalism upon neighborhood
properties are more likely acts of the local neighborhood "gangs" and kids
than being attributable to homeless persons passing through the area).
Another tirade suggested that Sam House was depreciating property and
personal values. Another suggested that Sam House "clients" were not fit to
be near, or even eat with (at Sam House's free Community Dining Room) women,
children and families (they are, of course, pedophiles and murderers - YES!
Richard Allen Davis DID eat at the Dining Room one time when he was in the
area! Does that make all the Dining Room participants potential Richard
Allen Davis'?), and should be served separately and at a different time than
families (and preferably in their cages/cells). Talk about discrimination!
Martin Luther King Jr. would sit up in his grave and turn over. And on and
on with Ms. Mack! Well, let's look at that community, for example, that Ms. Mack supposedly
"advocates for" (other than herself!) and which she says that Sam House sits
"in the middle of", and see how "pristine" that community really is (or at
least her version of what's behind the "heavenly gates" - and remember, Ms.
Mack, we are talking about North San Mateo....NOT Stone Mountain, Georgia or
Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, where perhaps Ms. Mack might hope to dwell,
perchance?) I have been a long time resident of North San Mateo (since Jan.
1984), and though no longer domiciled here (since June 97), I am still a
citizen here and have had the opportunity to "watch over", at times, the
realities of what transpires AT Sam House, "sitting", as it is, in the
"middle of our community" (per Ms. Mack). What I should like to examine is the character, ethics, values (or
whatever you might call it), OF a goodly number of the "citizens" of this
well-to-do (or not!) neighborhood which Ms. Mack does speak so highly of.
(Granted, ANY neighborhood might have any number of particularities and
idiosyncracies. And I do not write, or even consider, these words to be
defamatory in any way, contrary to Ms. Mack's defamations of Sam House!) Sam
House has a policy of allowing "donations", of food, clothing, toys,
furniture, etc., designated for those whom it is Sam House's mission to
serve, to be "dropped off" at Sam House's "front door" after-hours and at
the convenience of the donors thereof. However, after 5PM, Sam House does
not provide a representative to "receive" the goods and issue a receipt for
such. SO, what happens (and believe me, I have seen this with my very
eyes!)? Someone drops something off at 7PM, another at 7:30, then at 9, and
whenever. By morning, there is hardly anything there for Sam House to
"receive". WHY? Because "gangs" of the neighborhood mothers and children
(teaching the little ones to do as the adults do) descend upon Sam House
after-hours like a plague of locusts, to plunder, steal and remove any and
everything that has been innocuously "donated". I've seen stuff removed
within one minute's time after a donor has driven away, by the neighborhood
"hawk-eyes", who keep a watchful eye upon that "prize" of their neighborhood
"Golden Goose". And that's what it is! A "Golden Goose", sitting in the
middle of a neighborhood of thieves and plunderers. I've even seen fights
almost erupt between Asian and Hispanic women over the "spoils". (To their
credit, I've never seen any Blacks involved in this skulduggery, but then,
contrary to Ms. Mack's protestations, Sam House does NOT sit in a Black
neighborhood.) But, who am I to judge who should be the proper recipient of Sam House
donor "largesse"? The folks that Sam House's mission it is to serve (low/no
income, homeless, etc.) OR the neighborhood "scavengers" (who are the
best-dressed neighborhood in San Mateo, AND the one with the most weekend
"garage sales")? And if Sam House is not meant to "pass on" such donations
to its clientele, but to be, instead, the "Golden Goose" of the
neighborhood, then why should Ms. Mack, or anyone, rein such castigation
down upon Sam House and its clientele? Remember, foregoing ethics, values
and character, what did happen TO the "Golden Goose", when it was "abused",
plundered, or....whatever it was! Let Ms. Mack vent her "judgements" no longer as they have been, for the
Word was, "Judge not, lest ye be judged, but judge ONLY for thineself
alone!". Personally, as I say, I've had enough of Ms. Mack's "judgements"
upon Sam House, and I think many others have too! Even though Sam House
might surely survive such vitriol, Ms. Mack does seem to have a problem
adhering to the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., much less our more recent
prophet, Rodney King ("Can't we all just get along?"), to the detriment of
those she is intended to serve, including the North San Mateo community and
its various citizenry. Sincerely, Jerome Okay, the issue is the local San Mateo County homeless Winter Shelter,
operated for 4 months of the year at the California National Guard Armory on
Humboldt Ave. and providing 90 beds for clients daily between the hours of
6PM to 6AM, all for a currently reported cost of $300,000. Now, next year
they want to move the Shelter to San Bruno/South San Francisco, at a
reported cost of up to $3 million for those same 90 beds for 4 months.
Without going into all the intricacies and ramifications/necessities
involved in this $3 million endeavor by public agencies with public funding,
let's step back a bit and consider some alternatives that may be, just
possibly, more realistic. And in doing so, I will hereby put forth, what
seems to me to be, some simple math figures. (Granted, endeavors of this
kind, under the present economic system, require insurance coverage and on
and on, running up the costs. But, for now, I will forget about all those
politico-economic requirements, and just simplify the math a bit.)
Now, let's see how much per person expenditure is being accomplished for
that reported price tag of $3 million. If we are providing beds for the same
90 homeless individuals, that is an expenditure of $33,333 per person.
That's pretty ridiculous (and high)!
Now, let's try an alternative. This is something that gets a little
closer to what the Interfaith Hospitality Network (IHN) was trying to do,
but whether 15 San Mateo County churches can make a non-denominational
shelter network work (and then only for homeless families, NOT singles) is,
as yet, an open question.
But, the point is, this alternative is giving homeless clients at least a
little more individual and personal attention, as to SOME of their needs, by
bringing the generous and charitable energies, of the County's church-people
to bear on some of the problems of the homeless. And this, I say, is in
comparison to the present IMPERSONAL and institutional orientation of the
present 90 bed Winter Shelter, which provides cots (barracks-style
accommodations), showers, food, TV and County homelessness services, for the
single homeless adult. Minimal servicing of minimal needs.
However, disregarding the costs for now, let's just throw out another
possibility. I think most folks would agree that, here in San Mateo County,
there are probably hundreds (if not thousands) of in-law rooms, cottages or
apartments (or at least rooms) available in the homes of private parties,
which could certainly be rented for the sum of about $1200 a month, which,
in today's economy, would be welcome news to all such landlord-owners.
(Although true, in today's economy, many of these room rentals are probably
already rented......TO an employed person WITH acceptable references AND an
income, NOT an unemployed, maybe alcoholic, unacceptable homeless person!)
Okay, but wait. WHAT if we gave these landlord-owners an acceptable
INCENTIVE, to "rent" their rooms to a homeless person instead of whoever
now, AND, in doing so, INVOLVE, and engage, that landlord-owner, WITH their
INDIVIDUAL and PERSONAL "charity", benificence, compassion and
understanding, IN that homeless person's life and problems. HEY! Isn't this
what both parties WANT? Someone to CARE! True......Caring, in this
money-grubbing economic society of today, is not everyone's "bag" or cup of
tea. BUT, most people, given the chance, the opportunity, the incentive and
the reason, DO CARE!
Okay, say we find hundreds, and maybe even thousands, of people who CARE,
and WANT to be involved, in "solving" the problem of homelessness......WHAT
CAN THEY DO? Well, let's get back to that proposed alternative, of the
infamous "rentable" in-law quarters or spare room. Let's also do some basic
math on the situation.
Now, say these landlord-owners were receiving $600, on average (actually,
as I mentioned earlier, the actual amount is $1200, which I will explain
shortly), for their small room or in-law quarters, in their homes, by
"renting" to a pre- and well screened (by appropriate agencies or H.I.P.)
homeless person. Again, if we are talking about housing our original 90
homeless persons (who now, instead of staying at the Winter Shelter, would
be staying in a private home!) for 4 months, those 90 beds would now cost
the governmental agencies involved $216,000. HEY! That's a lot less than the
$300,000 being paid now, PLUS all the facilities (shower, bath, bed, etc.)
are probably ALREADY INSTALLED in that landlord-owner's home. That's quite a
savings, PLUS the homeless individual is also now receiving, certainly, more
personalized, AND probably more adequate, attention to their needs than they
are now, BY and FROM ordinary citizens WHO CARE!
Okay, BUT, that is 90 beds for 90 people. There are a hell of a lot more
homeless than that in San Mateo County - by one estimate, of a year ago,
over 16,000! (And that figure does NOT include the approximately 1000 "lost"
homeless, those with mental, drug and alcohol problems!) SO, what if we were
to take this same $600 PRIVATE-ROOM rental situation a bit further, and say
we extend it to 1000 homeless individuals - and not only for 4 months, BUT
FOR A WHOLE YEAR! (Which would surely give a homeless person the stability
and opportunity to DO SOMETHING THEMSELVES, about their quandary, at least
more so than the minimal Human Services offerings which are available now
and largely ineffective.)
Okay, 1000 persons @ $600/month times 12 months equals $7.2 million! But
wait! HOW MANY homeless persons COULD BE served YEAR-ROUND @ $600/month for
that same $3 million that is currently being quoted as the cost of providing
for only 90 beds for 4 months? Why, I do believe it comes out to 417
persons! And YEAR-ROUND, at that!
Okay, you might ask, How is the landlord-owner going to get that $1200
rental-incentive if he/she is only getting $600/month? Hey, tax deductions,
I do believe, yet still exist, in this corrupt, monetary economy of ours.
SO, with a 50% charitable deduction (helped along by whatever other
benefit-laws might be passed by our legislators!), most landlord-owners, in
receiving $600/month, would be receiving the taxable equivalent of
$1200/month, so, in effect, they HAVE received $1200, under our present tax
laws. So there is the monetary incentive. Of course, many good
religious/spiritual citizens would certainly be willing to do so regardless,
the monetary incentives be damned!
BUT, the personal CARING, and involvement, OF so much more of our
society, IN the problems of the homeless, would be so much of an improvement
over what exists now! And MAYBE - just MAYBE - a little bit of
humanitarianism AND human rights, might be invoked, in this society of ours.
Humanitarianism, in the form of the good folks who would be providing the
caring and opportunities for the homeless. And human rights, in that it
would certainly give the homeless individual the DIGNITY, and the
OPPORTUNITY, TO DETERMINE, and resolve, their OWN NEEDS, BY and OF their own
"doing", by enabling each individual to exercise their human right TO TAKE
WHAT ONE NEEDS, as determined ONLY BY ONESELF, from all of that which is
offered BY ALL OF SOCIETY! THAT is true participatory democracy! May such
yet be, and may the homeless of our society be no more homeless, and may all
those of good spiritual Soul (of whatever religion or faith) find that
Caring, which does exist within themselves, and which does so contribute TO
Bringing us all Together, in Peace, Harmony and Oneness of Spirit!
Aum, Peace, Amen!
To the Editors of the local San Mateo Newspapers (this piece is
being submitted to both the San Mateo County Times and the San Mateo Weekly
(ING). Hopefully, at least one of your papers might find the content
herewith newsworthy enough for publication):
Reply to: fatherjeromeusa@fiwd.org
Let's discuss another local issue for a change - housing the
homeless here in San Mateo County, Calif. (although, by extension, this
issue applies nationwide and even worldwide).
Jerome
Third Viewer Comment HERE!
Fourth Viewer Comment HERE!
Return
to this Website's HOME PAGE.
A Definition of the
Issues of Concern at this Website
Return to the
TOPICS OF CONCERN Page
