Editorial: Council should consider ‘safe-parking’ test program

Council should consider ‘safe-parking' test program|

'By ventilation units, where towers meet the streets – the ragged stand in bags soaking heat up through their feet' – the Clash, 'Car Jamming'

There is no homeless problem in Sonoma. That's what some people in town believe – and they're 99.9 percent correct. In that, 99.9 percent of Sonomans don't face the prospect of being homeless and, therefore, don't find it much of a problem.

However, to those very few who are, or have a loved one who is homeless, it's about as big a problem as it gets.

Homelessness comes in many forms – from park-bench sleepers and those congregating at open-space encampments to couch surfers and your kid who just graduated from Chico State without a job.

There are also the 'newly homeless.' They may have more recently been categorized, in housing-advocacy terms, as the 'precariously housed' – folks who are a rent increase or a job loss away from homelessness. The newly homeless have often suffered such a setback. They also sometimes have access to a vehicle, which sadly serves as their new digs.

The dedicated staff at Sonoma Overnight Support, the nonprofit which operates the Haven at 151 First St. W., often have more clients than their 10-bed shelter is set up for. They've come to the City with a proposal to allocate five parking spaces in front of the Haven for safe overnight parking for the vehicularly housed.

The Haven shares its parking lot with the Community Meeting Room, the dog park, athletic fields and overflow from the Veterans Memorial Hall parking lot. An additional five parking spaces would be made available at an undisclosed site, potentially a church. The pilot program would allocate the parking spaces during the summer months from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. on a three-month trial basis. The proposal is modeled after similar 'safe parking' arrangements run by Catholic Charities in Santa Rosa. Haven staff would vet clients and register vehicles for the 'safe parking'; Catholic Charities would fund and monitor the program.

After Kathy King, director of SOS, presented the proposal to the City Council at its June 6 meeting, councilmembers referred the matter to the city Facilities Committee, whose members include councilmembers Gary Edwards and David Cook. They planned to visit similar programs run by Catholic Charities in Santa Rosa and are expected to share the committee's findings at the June 27 Sonoma City Council meeting.

What they report to the council remains to be seen, but if it turns out the Catholic Charities programs are running smoothly, the Council should move forward with the pilot program. It will cost the city virtually nothing and potentially better-ensure the safety of some of its most vulnerable residents – which, as King points out, often includes women and children.

There are legitimate questions about such a program at that location – the shared usage of the busy lot; the city's no-camping ordinance; and safety and rule enforcement among them. But none that seems insurmountable. If the pilot program brings to light all sorts of unforeseen problems, council can kill the program.

The council has already dedicated much of its time to the plight of leaf-blower lovers and the leaf-blown-upon, surely it can dedicate a fraction of that attention to the few out there who call the reclining bucket seat of a '95 Saturn their 'bed.'

King estimates that right now there are between 10 and 15 Sonomans living in their cars who could benefit from the program.

The question isn't whether there's a homeless problem in Sonoma. If there's a single homeless person, then that should be problem enough.

Give these people a place to sleep, perchance to dream.

Email Jason at jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.