“This is the democratic process,” said Modesto City Councilmember Chris Ricci to a restive crowd of well over a hundred people at Modesto’s Church of the Brethren near the conclusion of a March 29 community meeting to discuss a proposal to locate a tiny home village on church grounds.
Located in a west Modesto neighborhood of well-kept single-family homes, the church has plenty of open ground for dozens of tiny homes but neighbors were nearly unanimous in opposition. Objections included some people angry at what they characterized as giveaways to lazy people, but the overwhelming sentiment was, “We don’t want it here.”
Citing concerns for their children and fears that crime would rise throughout the neighborhood, home and business owners were not interested in discussing the church’s plans to work with Family Promise to provide transitional housing for families experiencing temporary homelessness due to material factors like rising rents, evictions, lost jobs and emergency expenses for health care.
Many citizens were well aware that sufficient traditional housing options for California’s growing homeless population are years away. They were skeptical of claims that residents of the tiny home village would be relocated to traditional housing after regaining stability and security while living in tiny houses.
The fact is that there are magnitudes of difference between people who have recently become homeless for the first time and the chronically homeless. In many cases, homelessness is temporary and people emerge from it with new jobs and a return to traditional housing. They often need only a few weeks or months to regain employment and self-sufficiency.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness describes the chronically homeless as people who have been homeless for over a year, “while struggling with a disabling condition such as serious mental illness, substance use disorder or physical disability.” Chronic homelessness requires different systems of care and management tactics than services for the those who are only recently and temporarily homeless.
While these distinctions are well known among homeless advocates and those who’ve spent years working with people experiencing homelessness, the general public tends to see homeless people as an undifferentiated mass of thieves and addicts. This is in large part due to failures at the state and local level to educate the broader public about the material factors involved in homelessness, especially the harsh realities about broken systems of health care and housing shortages. While most people are aware that a large percentage of homeless people are mentally ill, that knowledge doesn’t make placing homeless people in their neighborhoods an attractive option, even when the goal is to rescue families suffering from temporary hardships while treating the mentally ill at other locations.
While Jessica Hill, Modesto’s Director of Community and Economic Development, did her best to allay residents’ concerns about crime, garbage and people “who do things normal people don’t do,” the overwhelming consensus was against locating tiny homes anywhere nearby, and most especially not on church grounds.
The Modesto City Council approved the “bridge housing” concept on November 7 of last year, after rejecting a proposal by three councilmembers to establish permitted campsites for homeless people. Now, the city will have to figure out where to establish the tiny home communities they’ve chosen as a chief remedy for rising numbers of homeless people throughout the city. The cost per tiny home unit has been estimated at $75,000. The city has budgeted $3 million for the bridge housing project. Homeless numbers in Modesto have been estimated to be somewhere between 450 and 750 individuals.
Councilmember Chris Ricci listened closely to constituents after the meeting ended. He learned the “democratic process” thus far indicates that the City of Modesto has a long way to go before establishing tiny home villages anywhere near local homeowners and businesses.
And we wonder why there’s a problem with finding housing for people.
We should house them at your house.
There are a lot of tiny homes that are not that expensive.
I think these will be sturdier, have electricity and plumbing. That makes then run a bit more. Hopefully they are ones built off site ( which is usually cheaper) and delivered ready to set up.
O they won’t and they are not tiny homes. Whoever wrote the article must not have listened to the demonstration. They are sleeping cabins and if they will be 75k each i think they are
Wasting their money. There wil be no running water or cooking they are basically hard sided tents
This is true. I had a meeting at Downey High School with Supervisors Condit & Withrow, Councilman Ricci, MCS ROP Director and some shop teachers about MCS constructing micro shelters in the Community Supported Shelters’ format. Conestoga micro. Their cost is about $1600 each. Add modest, volunteer built bath, kitchen, central area and fencing and costs would still not come close to $75k per unit. We have a community friendly TRRP trail system because of volunteerism.
[…] Story continues […]
These NIMBY TYPES need to familiarize themselves with California law. Churches do not need their approval. Churches and City Council members, current and past, MUST push through the opposition and apply the law as it reads. Nothing in CA’s changed law gives NIMBY’s the right to decide against what churches do on their own property, for the HOUSELESS. Even if it means City Council members lose their popularity amongst these muckrakers. It is precisely because of these self-centered people that there is such a huge shortage of homes for the poverty striken. The price of living quarters has risen so high, that poverty levels have risen. Yesterday’s middle income and lower income could afford housing. NIMBY’s are quite responsible for the housing developers’ costs of doing business being out of reach for the majority of new multi-family housing. NIMBY’s know their schemes were working against new developers who wanted to build anything other than single family housing. Recently, California legislators put laws into place on behalf of churches who choose to house those who are homeless.
Councilman Ricci, do not cow to NIMBY’s. No one needs to convince NIMBY’s of the difference between recently homeless families and longer-term homeless, as if any homeless persons are more deserving of a home. I am disappointed that anyone fell into that quagmire of an argument.
If you want progress for the homeless, you must be deaf to NIMBY resistance. You cannot allow them to get a foot in the door. NIMBY’s have been using the same old, same old, narratives to obstruct JUST outcomes for anyone, except their own self interests, class warfare, all based on greed. PUSH PAST THEIR ILLOGICAL ARGUMENTS. NIMBY TALK IS CHEAP…
OTHERWISE, YOU WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR THE HOMELESS THEY NEED. Familiarize yourselves with what NIMBY’s have been doing in every city across the USA, intent on getting over on local governments. They have been the cause of increased homelessness. There are books written on how NIMBY’s get away with BLOCKING housing of all kinds, with the most simplest objections. I could have warned you exactly how this meeting would turn up a majority of naysayers, and, the exact limp excuses they would use. There are books written on how to defeat them at their own game.
Push through all rhetoric, once you get one church property operating on behalf of the homeless, it will become easier and easier to tune NIMBY’s out. NIMBY’s will burn themselves out once they see the churches mean what they say and will not be deterred. It isn’t local government territory to have a say. Stop appeasing local government and NIMBYs. Follow what California state has said. They opened the way. Do not be deceived.
Sorry but we all work hard for our homes and you know nothing about our neighborhood. We do not have the services needed to accommodate these people and we already have a homeless project right down the street. We are tired of getting shit on by big government and the bleeding hearts.
I attend the Church of the Brethren. True, the proposal was not presented well. As explained by City staff, there are 4 phases to the process. We don’t even know if our proposal will be approved at all. Then City may modify or change it. Even it is approved, the church has to decide to accept it.
As was explained, multiple meetings will be held to explain what is happening. Most in the audience made assumptions about what has been proposed without understanding what it actually is. Understandable. We don’t want dangerous people roaming the neighborhood either. But the viciousness of some of the people was not called for.
The church used to host Family Promise (FP) families for a week at a time about 6 times a year along with 10 other churches. There were rarely any problems. They were under 24-hour supervision. These were families just like yours, only they had become homeless due to all sorts of reasons. Most Woodland area residents probably did not even know we were doing it. Our families were not the chronically homeless.
Our proposal is essentially a bigger version of what we did, run by FP, a non-profit, with outside units, security, and support. We don’t host FP now families because we don’t have the people or staff to do it. It takes a lot of work. And no, we did not get paid to do it. In fact, we donate money to Family Promise when we can. Many of us have died and are getting older. And it is not true that we are making this proposal for money, although there might be some. We don’t really know. But that is not our motivation. The reason we are doing this is to fulfill Christ’s mandate of service the best way we can. You know, “what you do to the least of these, you do to me.” Obviously, we are human. But we have the land and a humanitarian crisis in Modesto that must be addressed. This proposal, in our small way, attempts to do that. The Brethren church has always been service-oriented.
It is not true that a plan like ours cannot work. As Jessica mentioned, cities and churches are doing it in various forms, and it can work with proper size, screening, security, and support.
I repeat, adhere to CA state laws, especially as they are applicable to church grounds and housing provisions for the homeless. The state legislature did not ask your permission because they do not have to ask. The housing crises calls for all of us, regardless of neighborhood, to cooperate in housing those in need of housing. We all must do our part. Share…
Government has answered the call to end single family zoning, when and where it sees fit. We have all been asked to sacrifice for the good of all mankind.
CA state and YIMBYs have recognized the necessity of housing density increases in neighborhoods, even in close proximity to and amongst single family homes. YIMBYs worked hard toward this outcome. They are not about to be dissuaded.
Homeless people have worked hard to stay alive despite being sworn at by people who think they own more than their fair share. Times have changed. Get used to it. All things work best within moderation.
Perhaps one day soon you will come to appreciate the environmental justice within such a living arrangement.
May Almighty God continue to bless you. Be angry but do not sin.
Other parts of the city have borne nearly the entire burden of housing and caring for the city’s unhoused population for decades. ALL of the city needs to step up and share the burden . Transitional housing can work very well if it’s managed well—putting it on church property provides management for housing. Church of the Brethren is a good neighbor and there’s no reason to think that would change.
Families with young children who are already being housed inside the church. Literally nobody asked you to provide services so what is the point of the negativity you shared? Yes it’s clear you don’t have any humanity or compassion to share with a young child trying to succeed in school when they have no place to do their homework, shower or bed to sleep in at night or wake up in the morning for school in. You think it’s ok for the children to grow up in a world where a bunch of Karen’s are screaming at little kids telling them they are not wanted and not welcome in the woodland neighborhood. I see why they call it the wicked west side Modesto you don’t want to let children have a safe place to live and knowing there is no other option currently you don’t care if children suffer. There is nothing beautiful or wonderful in your neighborhood right now. You are actively standing up against homeless children and insisting that they may struggle and suffer because you had to get a job and work to have your home. So what! You feel slighted because you had to work and working rewards you with a home and you are acting ungrateful and entitled. You’re bitter because you didn’t get to live in tiny plastic tent house in the church parking lot so no one else should. You’re angry because you had to work and working paid you with a home. I worked my ass off since I was 15 6/7 days a week double shifts and I don’t own anything. I used every penny to buy food, clothing and shelter for my kids. Imagine working as you did and ending up with nothing other watching your kids now grown up and so successful and living wonderful lives. I’m not even complaining about not owning a home for all the hard work I’m just wondering why you are complaining about how you had to work and you got a home in exchange but you’re angry and upset about little kids moving into the church parking lot? Kids didn’t have to live in parking lots or cars so much when I was a child but that is the world we live in now. Were literally housing cartels and refuges from other countries so many that the people who were born here have to live outside in parking lots and shelters on sidewalks. It’s not acceptable for any human at any age but the line is drawn when residents of the woodland colony westside Modesto refuse to allow God to put tiny homes in one of his own parking lots outside his own house!! You have no right to say anything. It’s not your life, not your place, not your church.
Well said! !!!
Finally someone’s been reading my mind and spoke up and out loud… We may need to offer PA systems & a recording to every city council in Ca.
KEEP SPEEKING UP & OUT LOUD
NEVER YEILD… NEVER GIVE IN…
POOR FOLK NEED A WIN .
THANX10MILLION&RISING⏳
NIMBYS are showing signs of diminished capacity. They are describing a chaos like the streets of San Francisco moving in to the church parking lot and throwing a tantrum over it. Even after it was explained that it was for families with young children they literally said oh well I’m not going to change my mind because I can keep pretending whatever I want. They don’t even care if children are hurt or suffering because they continue to be homeless and told they are not wanted by the community. They need to keep their delusional thinking to themselves. The homeless youth are the ones who’s foundations are being built today and a safe happy home with their parents and siblings and parents not overwhelmed with the burden of homelessness is more important than the NIMBYS
[…] Story continues […]
[…] Story continues […]
It appears that neighbors came to the meeting with preconceived ideas about the project without waiting to hear any of the details…such as who would be eligible & who would run the project. Only recently unhoused people would be interviewed, vetted & eligible for these transitional temporary homes.
Drug abusers, mentally ill people or criminals would not be eligible.
In recent years Family Promise has run a program like this on our property with families staying in our church building without any problems. Most of these temporarily homeless families found employment & permanent housing within 6 months and are thriving independently.
The Nimbys are the best reason why California has such a homeless problem along with the most expensive housing cost in the world. No matter how much public money is spent on the unhoused it will not get better with attitudes expressed here.
I just think this is a crying shame and they wonder why it’s so many unhoused families praying it turns in the right favor🙏🙏
This is the text for SB4. It opened the door for tiny and micro shelter on church and university properties. I suggest Church of the Brethren start out small and work up slowly to a larger effort. A $75k price tag is ludicrous, there are many ways to keep costs down. Suggest folks take a look at Community Supported Shelters’ efforts in Eugene, Oregon. They have a nice website, explains a lot. They have multiple sites with micro shelters and have been operating them for years in nice neighborhoods. Homelessness is complex, work to your strengths. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB4