SLO County should rethink its decision to end safe parking | Opinion

San Luis Obispo County’s decision to phase out the Kansas Avenue safe parking program is disappointing, especially since there appears to be no immediate plan to replace it.

The county says it will help the current 70-80 residents find alternative housing, but it isn’t accepting anyone new to the program.

What does that mean for them?

Are they once again scrounging for places to park overnight?

The Kansas Avenue program was started in response to the large community of people who had been living out of their vehicles parked along Palisades Avenue in Los Osos. Local residents said it was untenable.

“It’s an unsanitary mess for the people encamped there and the people using our library, our park, the skate park, tennis courts, and for the Catholic church,” Becky McFarland told the Board of Supervisors at the time.

She was back in front of the board on Tuesday, reacting to news of the planned closure of the Kansas Avenue site.

“It’s hard to express my range of feelings about this bombshell,” she said during public comment. “I liken it to the county just deciding to tell the whole world that the tiny Los Osos Library parking lot would be this county’s safe parking site during the pandemic.”

The library lot is no longer designated for safe parking, but several unhoused people continue to live there in their vehicles, according to another Los Osos resident who spoke during Tuesday’s public comment session. She expects that number to grow if the county shuts down the Kansas Avenue safe parking lot.

“Where do you think they’re going to come?” she asked. “They’re going to come back.”

It’s a legitimate question that deserves an answer.

If anything, the county should be expanding safe parking facilities, which is what was envisioned in the county’s five-year plan to reduce homelessness adopted in August 2022 by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors.

By adopting the plan, that county committed to “rapid implementation of more non-congregate sheltering/temporary housing capacity of all types — pallet shelter, cabins, tiny homes, safe parking.”

Unless it plans to open another facility that it’s not telling us about, the county appears to be doing exactly the opposite.

On top of that, it’s calling the safe parking project a failure.

“We wanted to provide an opportunity for people to transform their lives, and we weren’t meeting the objectives that we initially thought we would,” county Administrative Officer Wade Horton told The Tribune.

Part of the problem was the inability to find a contractor interested in running the program and providing case management for the residents.

“We’re not a homeless services provider,” Horton said. “There are subject matter experts that the county contracts with in order to provide those best practices services.”

That’s understandable; most safe parking programs in California are run by nonprofit organizations that contract with government agencies.

But what happens if the county is never able to find a contractor willing to take on the job?

Is there no one who will step up to the plate and take responsibility for ensuring its five-year plan is implemented?

We hope not. Safe parking isn’t ideal — of course, permanent housing is preferable — but it’s better than sending people out on the street.

Besides, declaring the program a failure sends a terrible message.

If that particular program didn’t work, change it up. There are plenty of models out there.

For example, to avoid having safe parking lots turn into “forever homes,” limit the length of stays. Or charge a minimal fee, based on ability to pay. Or instead of having one large site, have two or three smaller ones that are easier to manage.

But don’t deny people a safe place to sleep because the current program is falling short of the aspirational goal of transforming lives. Or because there aren’t any agencies willing to run it.

What would the county have done if Cal Fire hadn’t taken on the responsibility of providing fire protection?

Would it simply have shrugged its shoulders and said, too bad?

Of course not.

Nor should it do so in this case.

We strongly urge the county to stick to the five-year plan enthusiastically adopted by the Board of Supervisors — a plan that calls for more temporary housing, including safe parking — not less.

This story was originally published March 2, 2023 at 5:30 AM.