The Safe Parking Site on Oklahoma Avenue for housing the homeless has predictably failed, and the county is now wondering what to do about the squalid encampment and its residents. As SLO County Homeless Services Manager Joe Dzvonik admitted to New Times ("No more vacancy," March 9), "It isn't working."

The program is "no longer accepting new participants." Translated: The lot is full because the current residents won't leave.

The original objective was doomed from the start. Dzvonik and now former SLO County Administrative Officer Wade Horton told New Times that it "failed to meet its goal of being a temporary solution for its unhoused participants." Janna Nichols of the 5Cities Homeless Coalition said, "I envisioned people coming in, parking at night, and leaving." But, in an outcome that shouldn't have surprised anyone, the lot quickly filled as the residents arrived, settled in, and never left, despite a "contract" in which they promised to leave within 90 days. As Supervisor Bruce Gibson observed, this was "a learning curve" for the county.

Nobody was happy with the outcome. To the residents, the program failed to provide them with the supportive services they wanted. A few months ago, they even formed a "union" to represent them against the county, although this seems to be a misinterpretation of the function of a union. While a typical union uses the threat of work or rent stoppages to extract concessions, it is unclear just how residents who are residing for free could "strike." But it sounds militant, which may be the point.

Service providers like SLO Homeless Services and the Community Action Partnership of SLO found failure in their inability to effectively organize, utilize, and deliver services. Instead of judging the program by whether or not it turned the homeless into sober and self-reliant people, they seemed to measure the success of the "process" of providing services, over the desired end result of changing the life trajectories of the homeless.

Still, the residents of Los Osos and other areas where the homeless had previously camped at least enjoyed some temporary relief.

The failure is quite visible. Not only does the encampment now consist of a collection of usually derelict RVs and other vehicles, tarps, and bountiful debris, but the presence of the camp has apparently created security concerns nearby. Cyclone fencing has also been recently added to nearby county facilities to address what appears to be new problems of theft near the camp. It does not appear to be a good neighbor.

This outcome was sadly predictable. When you have individuals, most of whom are suffering a downward spiral of addiction or mental illness, and who are driving a collection of older RVs and other vehicles at the end of their useful lifespans, how else could it have possibly played out? If you are homeless and your decrepit vehicle becomes inoperable, how could you leave? If you find yourself in a desirable place like SLO, why would you want to leave? Regardless of rules or any "contract" that you may have signed, you're going to stay. It was never realistic to expect otherwise, and the residents understood that the county wasn't likely to do anything as harsh as evict them.

In a beautiful place like SLO, where people are willing to pay $160 per night to camp at Flying Flags in Avila, it is no surprise that free camping would quickly fill up.

I sympathize with county government and its difficult situation. The foolish Martin v. Boise decision effectively requires government to provide housing or a camping location for however many homeless may find their way here, or they won't be able to keep the homeless from camping in residential areas.

We can't "fix" homelessness, which is caused by far more intractable problems than just a lack of affordable housing. As long as the Boise decision stands, we are stuck with the homeless, so the best that we can do is to manage the problem so as to minimize the impact on the rest of us.

How do we replace the Oklahoma Avenue facility? We should at least realistically anticipate and plan for how things will play out at the replacement. Many residents will arrive, and few will be able or willing to leave, and it will quickly reach full capacity. The camp will accumulate plentiful junk and dead vehicles. There will be crime in the camp and nearby, as well as the random craziness that accompanies addiction and mental illness. Fires and injuries will be a threat. The placement of the new facility should keep these problems in mind.

Instead, why not just increase the number of shelter spaces so that there will always be space available? This would satisfy the Boise requirements so that the government could again enforce parking and public camping laws, and would eliminate the problem of a camp full of dead vehicles and squalor. Rules prohibiting intoxicants could be enforced. The facility should be located far from any residential area. Δ

John Donegan is a retired attorney in Pismo Beach who wishes he had all the answers. Respond with a commentary submitted to [email protected].