
Homeless Apartments & Psych housing in Old Folsom
#91
Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:35 AM
with the proposed crazy house where they want it will bake it easier for the police folks to watch them and the bad invaders who come to our town by light rail.
I am not sure who pays for the crazy folks rent, and the big question is who will be the landlord.
that a fair amount of rent money and if the government is paying the checks would be on time every month. I would think crazy folks wouldn't complain much either
#92
Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:36 AM
Then, it is said that seriously mental ill folks will and/or will not be working in Folsom:
Others are questioning whether the housed folks will be those who already live in Folsom (why would they need housing if they already have it?) or will be coming from elsewhere (a more likely scenario).
Someone needs to ask and answer the question about what level of disability the proposed residents would actually have, where they will come from, and how they will be supported. There are a lot of state and county programs for the disabled. But, then again, if there is a group of mentally disabled people hanging around town with no job and nothing to do, you might wonder where they'll be hanging and whether it makes a difference.
#93
Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:50 AM
#94
Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:54 AM
Then, it is said that seriously mental ill folks will and/or will not be working in Folsom:
Others are questioning whether the housed folks will be those who already live in Folsom (why would they need housing if they already have it?) or will be coming from elsewhere (a more likely scenario).
Someone needs to ask and answer the question about what level of disability the proposed residents would actually have, where they will come from, and how they will be supported. There are a lot of state and county programs for the disabled. But, then again, if there is a group of mentally disabled people hanging around town with no job and nothing to do, you might wonder where they'll be hanging and whether it makes a difference.
Tess, I think your right. There are too many questions, tho.. if they are not answered or brainstormed prior to council giving go ahead I wonder how many times the community will kick themselves in the butt later on. I honestly feel sorry for whomever is on the board and has to vote for this. Either way, I think they will get flak for it.
#95
Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:15 PM
Since the City will be approving development S50 in the near future why not include facilities like this in that area as a condition of approval. This way everyone who would be buying and moving into that area, would understand in advance of what would be in their neighborhood, instead of forcing it into an existing neighborhood where it wasn't planned.
It seems to be a win win situation.
#96
Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:22 PM
Since the City will be approving development S50 in the near future why not include facilities like this in that area as a condition of approval. This way everyone who would be buying and moving into that area, would understand in advance of what would be in their neighborhood, instead of forcing it into an existing neighborhood where it wasn't planned.
It seems to be a win win situation.
I think thats the quickest way to not get any development out in that area. ha ha, at lest the burrowing owl will be happy.
#97
Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:25 PM
Since your email above specifically draws from previous posts of mine, allow me to respond. I actually mistyped the first statement - it should simply have read that there are already seriously mental ill people walking amonst us. That should help to clear up the second quote as well regarding employment of the mentally ill. Sorry for the typo.
Also, I don't know where the residents of this housing will come from, although I kind of doubt that they'll be importing them from all over the state. Perhaps this will be an "opportunity" for people who are barely scraping by in their current Folsom housing. Perhaps the people will have been recently released from hospitals. Perhaps it will be homeless folks coming in off of the streets. Who knows?
Speaking of things needing clarification, there seems to be some confusion as to the size of this project. The article refers to 19 "units". Is this 19 individual apartments or 19 apartment buildings? My understanding is that we're talking about 19 individual apartments, but perhaps I'm mistaken. If it's 19 individual aparment buildings, each presumably consisting of multiple individual apartments, I can't imagine where that would physically fit within the Historic District.
#98
Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:50 PM
That's been my assumption, just because it's being called "transitional" housing, which is usually what that means. But I'm not finding anything definitive on that.
Sinatra "Here's to the Losers"
#99
Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:38 PM
Speak you mind if you want. Go to the meeting...
#100
Posted 27 March 2007 - 02:13 PM
#101
Posted 27 March 2007 - 02:19 PM
I just went back and read one of the older posts. Now I have to apologize. I guess there will be 19 apartments on a 1.5 acre lot. So at least that means we aren't talking tons of people. I mean how many people can you fit into 19 apartments? It does ease my mind that they will be on 1.5 acres. That is much better than 19 apartments I was envisioning. Boy. I got into the hype too much. Sorry folks.
#102
Posted 27 March 2007 - 02:29 PM
Regarding this town having to deal with being known as the "prison town"... yes, we do have a high-risk prison facility but the difference is that those bad boys are under guard 24/7 and do not have a chance to wander the streets and their buildings are secluded over 1/2 mile from the main road.
#103
Posted 27 March 2007 - 02:32 PM
Regarding this town having to deal with being known as the "prison town"... yes, we do have a high-risk prison facility but the difference is that those bad boys are under guard 24/7 and do not have a chance to wander the streets and their buildings are secluded over 1/2 mile from the main road.
good point. Then again, the city does have insurance to cover the lawsuits when the pyschos go and get run over in the middle of the street why talking to the pretty moon at high noon...don't they?
#104
Posted 27 March 2007 - 02:41 PM
It isn't my intent to prevent development there, but to make sure when S50 is developed that area contributes towards its fair share of its impacts. It just seems logical to try and incorporate these needs into the initial planning process rather than come back after the fact and allow it into existing neighborhoods where it was never planned to be located.
Remember, the applicant is asking for a rezone, there is NO law that requires the council to do so. The council could just as easily designate this type of zoning S50 in an area prior to approving a Developer agreement for the land. Naturally, the landowners there probably would NOT be very supportive of this type of facility in their project as it may lower values around the facility.
#105
Posted 27 March 2007 - 02:49 PM
Did you know that when McClellean AFB was in full swing that the neigbhorhoods surrounding it in North Highlands were all new houses, young families and it was considered a nice place to live. Now look at it, are we going to become the next "North Highlands"?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users