203 replies to this topic

[D's TK]

The first thing I will ask each of you: What would you do if this was your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother or child?

This is very personal but I feel i must share this info.

My sister, who is 41, is one of the 158 people who live in Folsom and are being served by Sac County Mental Health .

She would benefit from this type of housing. She is bipolar. ( she takes 4 different types of medication) She is currently coming out of a severe depression that twice nearly took her life in August.

She currently lives with me and my family ( my husband and 3 daughters)since with a disability income of $605 dollars month, she can not afford to live on her own.

She applied for SSD and was approved. She will now get $715 a month, period. She has worked off and on over the years when her illness allowed her. right now it does not.

We have lived with this devistating illness since she was about 13. she has lived on her own over the years, sometimes with roommates.

She came to live with me in Sept. when her medication was no longer accurate. We needed to have her close to family to help her. She had been living 2 hours away.

We struggled for several months to get her medication adjusted and believe me, it is not easy. Chemicals for the brain are difficult. Some work for others and some dont.

We feel that in about 6 months she should be at the point to live on her own again. What do I do? She can not afford to live on her own and we can not afford to fully support her.

I would like her to stay in our community.Having her closer to us, helps us keep on top of her and her medications. I would prefer to not ship her off to some other part of the county. I belive in helping those currently in my community.

Please explain to me why she should not live in our city?

I think if you have never had this type of disease or illness in your family, you will never see its true devasation. " walk in my shoes before you cast judgement".

This disease will never go away. With proper medication, counseling, family and community support, she can hope to have a "normal" life. Many do and many successfully manage their disease.

She is not a threat to anyone and in fact is so very sweet.

But here are some of the facts:

this apt complex is designed for those that are successfully managing their illness. It is not for those with criminal backgrounds, violence or drug histories.The screening criteria is very strict. How many apartment complexes are u aware of that can legally do a criminal background on their potential tenants?

Those that have this type of illness can do very well when they live in an environment with others that share their illness. Having a manager there 8-5, supporting those that live there, can keep them on the right path.

I could probably go on for several more pages but I wanted to share this.

But I leave with this last question?

If an apt complex was being petitioned to house the sight impaired, hearing impaired, or mentally challenged who successfully can live independantly, would we be fighting it?

There is a terrible stigma about mental illness and it is time we stopped this stigma. Not all people with mental illness are criminals.

"These people " are our Mother, Fathers, Brothers and sisters.

Lisa, you are awesome! And thank you for sharing your story! I just started reading this thread today and can't believe the level of disrespect some of these folks are spewing out!! And the hatred! Calling people "mentals" and "psycho's" and all. It makes me ashamed to live in the community. My husband is not a bleeding-heart liberal but he is a mental health professional and we know first-hand that the judgement and stigma attached to mental illness needs to go away Kudos to you for the loving support you and your family are showing your sister!! As someone who also has family members that suffer from mental illness, I find it extremely offensive the hateful way "these people" are being discussed in this matter. Thank you for sharing your personal story...not that it will make one iota of difference to the die-hards who don't understand mental illness and immediately get the shivers whenever they hear the term!

[Duke]

no co-tenants unless they are directly related to the main tenants.

According to TLCS( the applicant developing the apt complex) all adults living in the units will have criminal background checks.

The point was that this will not be like a usually apt complex will mutiple roommates.

That's pretty vague. I'm skeptical that non-patient co-tenants can be properly screened. Are authorized tenants simply asked to disclose the identities of those residing with them? What specific measures exist to prohibit/eject unauthorized co-tenants?

[old soldier]

from all I hear the folks who will live in these houses will be medicated and pretty mellow. They will be close to old town and that will give them a nice place to wander around which wouldn't be the case out in empire ranch or other rich people neighborhoods.

part of the charm of going to san francisco is watching the people more than a few who might be patients. putting the best twist on the situation would be our old town will have a little san franciso charm.

[Redone]

The reality is, this property has the right to up to 25 units, the property is available, and this is what the current owner wants to see built there.

Does the project have the "right" to ask for $2,300,000 ?

[Kerri Howell]

Does the project have the "right" to ask for $2,300,000 ?

Actually, yes they do have the "right" to ask for funding from Redevelopment Agency funds (as this property is within the RDA boundaries, and a percentage of that money MUST be spent on housing) and they have the "right" to ask for money from the affordable housing trust fund. On the other hand, the Council does not have to give them the money - and we did not give them $2.3 M, we authorized up to $200 K, less than 10 percent of what they asked for.

Kerri

[D's TK]

from all I hear the folks who will live in these houses will be medicated and pretty mellow. They will be close to old town and that will give them a nice place to wander around which wouldn't be the case out in empire ranch or other rich people neighborhoods.

part of the charm of going to san francisco is watching the people more than a few who might be patients. putting the best twist on the situation would be our old town will have a little san franciso charm.

Hey there O.S.

I have read lots of your input around the forum and usually find you to be a pretty decent and reasonable guy. Having said that, and with all due respect, these folks are not zoo animals....they are people just like everyone else and should not be thought of as some sort of amusing addition to the H.D.

[lisasellshouses]

Hey there O.S.

I have read lots of your input around the forum and usually find you to be a pretty decent and reasonable guy. Having said that, and with all due respect, these folks are not zoo animals....they are people just like everyone else and should not be thought of as some sort of amusing addition to the H.D.

Thank you, I was thinking the same thing.

Ignorance about mental health is obviously an issue our community needs to be educated about.

Chances are you already live on a street with someone with a mental disorder but you may never know it. These illness can be managed successfully.

I am more worried about those in our community that are not being treated at all.

[old soldier]

hey D's TK , I wasn't being disreapectful but just pointing out that when the houses go in the folks living there will not be a threat if they are wandering around.

I am kind to the homeless as well especially since a lot of them are former soldiers with problems that cause them to be homeless and the government doesn't have anything to help them

when I go to san francisco I always see harmless folks singing and talking who look like they need help and the scene is just sort of san francisco.

it may well be the patients in these homes will not be wandering around

[Chad Vander Veen]

The first thing I will ask each of you: What would you do if this was your Mother, Father, Sister, Brother or child?

This is very personal but I feel i must share this info.

My sister, who is 41, is one of the 158 people who live in Folsom and are being served by Sac County Mental Health .

She would benefit from this type of housing. She is bipolar. ( she takes 4 different types of medication) She is currently coming out of a severe depression that twice nearly took her life in August.

She currently lives with me and my family ( my husband and 3 daughters)since with a disability income of $605 dollars month, she can not afford to live on her own.

She applied for SSD and was approved. She will now get $715 a month, period. She has worked off and on over the years when her illness allowed her. right now it does not.

We have lived with this devistating illness since she was about 13. she has lived on her own over the years, sometimes with roommates.

She came to live with me in Sept. when her medication was no longer accurate. We needed to have her close to family to help her. She had been living 2 hours away.

We struggled for several months to get her medication adjusted and believe me, it is not easy. Chemicals for the brain are difficult. Some work for others and some dont.

We feel that in about 6 months she should be at the point to live on her own again. What do I do? She can not afford to live on her own and we can not afford to fully support her.

I would like her to stay in our community.Having her closer to us, helps us keep on top of her and her medications. I would prefer to not ship her off to some other part of the county. I belive in helping those currently in my community.

Please explain to me why she should not live in our city?

I think if you have never had this type of disease or illness in your family, you will never see its true devasation. " walk in my shoes before you cast judgement".

This disease will never go away. With proper medication, counseling, family and community support, she can hope to have a "normal" life. Many do and many successfully manage their disease.

She is not a threat to anyone and in fact is so very sweet.

But here are some of the facts:

this apt complex is designed for those that are successfully managing their illness. It is not for those with criminal backgrounds, violence or drug histories.The screening criteria is very strict. How many apartment complexes are u aware of that can legally do a criminal background on their potential tenants?

Those that have this type of illness can do very well when they live in an environment with others that share their illness. Having a manager there 8-5, supporting those that live there, can keep them on the right path.

I could probably go on for several more pages but I wanted to share this.

But I leave with this last question?

If an apt complex was being petitioned to house the sight impaired, hearing impaired, or mentally challenged who successfully can live independantly, would we be fighting it?

There is a terrible stigma about mental illness and it is time we stopped this stigma. Not all people with mental illness are criminals.

"These people " are our Mother, Fathers, Brothers and sisters.

I think most people are objecting not because this is for mentally ill people but because the Historic District and surrounding areas are unfairly burdened with these low income projects. I'm curious lisa, where do you live, generally?

[cw68]

That's pretty vague. I'm skeptical that non-patient co-tenants can be properly screened. Are authorized tenants simply asked to disclose the identities of those residing with them? What specific measures exist to prohibit/eject unauthorized co-tenants?

The same holds true for any home, not just these homes.

I don't live in psych housing, but my sister has been clinically diagnosed as psychotic. As far as I know, she's only been a threat to herself, but there's nothing stopping her from moving into my house, which "could" be next door to you and your family.

[D's TK]

I think most people are objecting not because this is for mentally ill people but because the Historic District and surrounding areas are unfairly burdened with these low income projects. I'm curious lisa, where do you live, generally?

I think this debate started out thinly disguised as "hey, there's already too much burdening the historic district" and that may very well be the case, BUT...let's get real for a second....would anyone in this community really want this type of proposed housing going up in their neighborhood?? I strongly suspect that there are quite a few people out there that don't think the mentally ill or homeless "deserve" to live out here with us. I think this is very much a case of NIMBY....

[D's TK]

I am more worried about those in our community that are not being treated at all.

Well said!

[mylo]

I think this debate started out thinly disguised as "hey, there's already too much burdening the historic district" and that may very well be the case, BUT...let's get real for a second....would anyone in this community really want this type of proposed housing going up in their neighborhood?? I strongly suspect that there are quite a few people out there that don't think the mentally ill or homeless "deserve" to live out here with us. I think this is very much a case of NIMBY....

As the original poster, this thread started out saying that the Historic District is already overburdened with this type of proposed housing.

I agree that there are many people who don't want this housing in their neighbourhood, very NIMBY.

My complaint is that new developments don't take into account their legal requirements (not even counting their moral obligation) and fail to set aside lots that allow these type of developments to be evenly spread throughout our community.

My understanding of these laws is that they exist to prevent NIMBY's from excluding these decidedly necessary services from their communities, pushing them into "lesser" neighbouring cities or regions.

Somehow this law is being interpreted as such: We can't say "Folsom doesn't want this, let's put it in Rancho" but we can say "Broadstone doesn't want this, put it in Old Town". That just doesn't make sense to me.

This project sounds like it's moving ahead. Looking at Folsom's continued development, especially in regards to the annexation of the land south of 50, what is going to be done to ensure that lots are set aside in the future? My bet is nothing, and we'll see the exact same argument for why the next project has to go onto Sibley or Bidwell.

[D's TK]

As the original poster, this thread started out saying that the Historic District is already overburdened with this type of proposed housing.

I agree that there are many people who don't want this housing in their neighbourhood, very NIMBY.

My complaint is that new developments don't take into account their legal requirements (not even counting their moral obligation) and fail to set aside lots that allow these type of developments to be evenly spread throughout our community.

My understanding of these laws is that they exist to prevent NIMBY's from excluding these decidedly necessary services from their communities, pushing them into "lesser" neighbouring cities or regions.

Somehow this law is being interpreted as such: We can't say "Folsom doesn't want this, let's put it in Rancho" but we can say "Broadstone doesn't want this, put it in Old Town". That just doesn't make sense to me.

This project sounds like it's moving ahead. Looking at Folsom's continued development, especially in regards to the annexation of the land south of 50, what is going to be done to ensure that lots are set aside in the future? My bet is nothing, and we'll see the exact same argument for why the next project has to go onto Sibley or Bidwell.

I understand what you are saying but (and this an honest question) what is the real concern about the placement of this housing development...aside from the legal aspects and such?

[mylo]

I understand what you are saying but (and this an honest question) what is the real concern about the placement of this housing development...aside from the legal aspects and such?

My concern, as stated in my OP, was that the placement of this (and other) housing developments that should be evenly spread throughout our community creates an unnecessary burden on the Historic District, hampering it's ongoing efforts to revitalize.

The Historic District already has a large list of hurdles to overcome in it's revitalization efforts. They are documented well on the Historic Folsom Revitalization Website: http://www.historicf...talization.com/

I don't believe that psychiatric and even more low income housing are positive towards these goals. New communities, with legal and moral responsibilities to provide their share of these services, are pulling NIMBY rank and as a result the HD has to pickup the slack.

I feel this will negatively impact the revitalization. I fear that if this effort looses steam, this "jewel of our city" will fall back into it's downward spiral of disrepair, disregard, slowly dying businesses, and failing infrastructure that is evident today.

I think the Historic District is a great asset to our community, and I don't want to see these efforts fail!