Not true. From the article:
> The city of Fremont started developing a proposal for a new navigation center, and asked residents for input. Elected officials and staff organized three public meetings about the proposal, accepted comments online, and heard from hundreds of residents at city council meetings. Fremont residents wore white to city hearings to express support for the proposed center; others wore either red or blue, to express their opposition to specific proposed sites.
The article also talks about how we wants the houses people decide whether and where it's built. I think anybody will recognize the ridiculousness of holding a whole referendum on whether one small service center is getting built (especially with Grant money on the line, this will effectively kill the proposal)
Why is it ridiculous?
Here: http://www.ktvu.com/homeless/fremont-resident-on-hunger-stri...
[..]Sun said he’s not against a homeless navigation center. He doesn't care where it's built. He does care who has a say and feels it should be up to the voters.
It’s his first hunger strike over the city’s first-ever homeless navigation center. He said it should be a ballot initiative for the voters to decide and not city leaders.
“Only position I take is the decision making,” said Sun. “I believe this decision is so critical for Fremont.”
[..]
Sacramento is holding Bay Area cities hostage. The citizens pay for all of this.
Are you saying people shouldn’t get a say on how their cities are run?
It costs the city 4 more million and approximately 45% of the 2 million grant money is for administrative costs. It only serves 45 homeless people for six months(a bed and one meal a day and counseling) and grant money comes with strings that the city has to take in 45 people from other cities in alameda county.
That means 45 out of 608 homeless headcount in Fremont will get the ‘service’ of being directed to homeless services. Is that a good use of 2.4 million grant money? You can build a permanent group homes housing 50-60 people for the same amount in another part of CA that isn’t crazy expensive Bay Area.
Better uses for the grant money.
If there's one thing Bay Area cities have proven, it's that their citizens are incapable of running their cities. Putting NIMBY interests above regional interests are how they ended up in the current situation where any solution requires 7 counties, 22 regional associations and hundreds of so-called cities who can object to anything but are incapable of doing anything..
Regional government is Big Govt which is inefficient, bulky and expensive. Small units are efficient to run and tighter ships to maneuver. YIMBYism is too close to co-dependency rather than cooperation. Do we want a nanny state?
Fremont has to dip into its general and emergency funds and use city owned land to build these HNCs. That’s the commons.
The city council held public meetings but about location. They had already voted to accept grant money. Further, there are many shelters and homes in the city. The grant money doesn’t need to go to HNCs. Providing more services through the existing 6-7 locations and providing mobile services like health checks, laundry/showers/food while transitioning them to permanent housing are other options, but they are not being explored.
The biggest chunk would go to paying BACS, a non profit that would be managing the HNCs. The people also don’t want it near schools and residential homes.
I feel it’s all valid concerns. I wouldn’t doubt the cynicism and distrust expressed by the local citizenry when elected officials hurriedly pass measures without local input. When the commons are impacted, everyone gets to voice their concerns.
This is a narcissistic NIMBY.
What is more important to alleviate homelessness? Placing them in communities built in affordable places to deliver care and services ..or insist on keeping them in unaffordable tier 1 cities like Seattle and Bay Area cities?
All progressive politics seems to be geared towards strengthening and propagating a voter base rather than finding real solutions.