Rag Readers’ Reactions to Meeting on H-Barracks

63 thoughts on “Rag Readers’ Reactions to Meeting on H-Barracks”

1. Don’t mean to be heartless but, A) can’t blame them, B) why is the location acceptable to the city regardless of health conditions? Noise, asbestos, etc? For a short term plan, i get it, but there’s no long term plan I’ve heard after. Mayor Todd wants to kick this can to his next election.

   1. Here’s why those residents can very much be blamed. The homelessness issue has gotten to the point where (f we are to help them) it’s going to need to be done somewhere. No matter where, the residents will piss and moan. Other than it being used for fire dept training it’s unused space with rotting buildings.

      As far as health conditions, asbestos and all that my understanding is the buildings will be completely torn down and all debris removed. What I don’t know if new building and facilities will be put in their place or will be simply be a tent city?

      1. So, it’s an issue that has to happen and that those people against it are blamed for simply going against it. That’s how I read your response. So those people financing the system through tax dollars be damned and have no voice?

         1. And if noise/ health is an issue that has prevented development, then why is it ok to house homeless now there? outside of a temporary facility?

            1. That’s exactly right. There is no real concern for these people, just cheap political points to be gained.

               1. I don’t anyone is under the illusion Todd cares for anyone but his own career. An acquaintance of mine is on his staff and is the first to admit she would never vote for him if she didn’t work for him. As I’ve posted before, nearly everyone who voted for him knows what a creep he is. That doesn’t mean all his ideas are bad.

            2. Is noise and health the reason for no development? Those buildings could have been removed and that whole area cleaned up for re-development decades ago. I have no idea why it never happened. Maybe you have more info on that?

               1. Isn’t there a Marriott and a Hampton Inn close to the H-Barracks location?

                  1. Yes to both.

         2. If such a facility were to be put in place where I live I would be ok with it, so I guess you can say for that very reason I just don’t have a lot of sympathy for the people who don’t want it there. Take that however you’d like.

            1. Guess they can all go to your house then. #Party@Chris’

               1. Kind of a non sensical reply for the sake of snark (I admit I do that all the time), but really all I said is I’d be ok if such a facility (or some type of facility) to help these people were placed in my neighborhood.

                  1. You said, take it however you like? So don’t complain about the response.

                     1. You first said “So, it’s an issue that has to happen and that those people against it are blamed for simply going against it. That’s how I read your response.”

                        I’m not complaining, just pointing out that you know what I meant other Chris. So again it’s still a non sensical response.

                        1. Not really, paraphrasing your remarks is, those who finance the system have no right to voice against it?

                           “No matter where, the residents will piss and moan”

                           1. Everyone has the right to voice an opinion on the proposal, just as people have the right to voice an opinion about those opinions on this blog. My opinion is that this proposal will have almost no impact on Point Loma whatsoever, as well as thinking that the most expensive option of all is for San Diego to continue to do next to nothing about the issue of homelessness.

                              Left to fester, it detracts from tourism, property values, and accompanying tax revenues, while taking up a preposterous share of 911/non-emergency calls and first responder resources (preventing them from attending to other calls in a timely manner, if at all).

2. Why does the city want to put them there? There are no services nearby, no access to public transit, further alienating and isolating this population. Seems to me that the 10,000 or so houseless individuals should be evenly distributed amongst all of the neighborhoods in the city rather than concentrating them in a very few.

   Also, I can’t blame the homeowners and business owners in Liberty Station as it will undoubtedly be completely over run with junkies the minute that shelter is built.

   1. How many homeless people are already out on the streets just a few blocks to the north of Liberty Station? Several hundred, if not over a thousand?

      1. There are not 1,000 people wandering the streets outside Liberty Station. According to the SD.gov websites there are 52 planning communities in San Diego. People should be sheltered evenly throughout each of these neighborhoods, no exceptions.

         https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community-plans

         1. “People should be sheltered evenly throughout each of these neighborhoods,”

            I actually don’t disagree with that.

         2. There are tons of unhoused people just to the north of Liberty Station in the Midway District, no further from there than the H Barracks.

            Yes, unhoused people should be more evenly distributed. But this is a national problem in which maybe 100 places in the country are forced to take on a disproportionate share of the problem – especially in a warmer weather city like San Diego.

            It’s a bummer because there are known solutions that can actually mitigate things to a large extent. First, the availability of affordable housing, basic physical/mental health care, and appropriate safety nets that keep people from being tossed on the street like trash in the first place. Second, small-scale safe shelters and shared housing facilities interspersed through communities that have on-site trauma/mental health/addiction services and job training for those that do find themselves unhoused.

            But as a society, we would rather let these people who find themselves on the margins sleep in their own urine outside storefronts and alongside rivers, gradually deteriorating mentally to the point where making it back to normal society is all but impossible for them. We do this despite the fact that doing so is a far more expensive option due to the strain it puts on first responder services and the adverse economic impacts it has on the downtowns and neighborhoods where the unhoused congregate.

            But we would rather pay more money and have a lower quality of public life just because we are a nation of heartless NIMBY dickheads who have been conditioned to hate the less fortunate in a win-or-lose, zero sum, hypercapitalist society.

            IMO, this proposal itself is nothing more than a band-aid on a gaping head wound, because a city of $1.4m doesn’t have the financial ability to do anything else about it due to the utter lack of political will that exists for this issue among its residents. The H Barracks will almost certainly never be filled anywhere near capacity, and especially not by the “junkies” you are worried about taking over Liberty Station, as they would rarely choose to go to a de facto supervised campground like this willingly.

            /rant

            1. I know of exactly one Senator – one! – who is actually working county by county to build affordable housing for people who aren’t rich and aren’t poor.
               Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon.
               He and his staff methodically and actually listen to their constituents in each county, hear what needs to be done and where, then help put together packages of local, state, federal, and private money to make it happen.
               It’s not rocket science, but then I guess Merkley is not beholden to large donors that prevent him from doing the jjob he was elected to do.

   2. Wait. What? No services nearby?! Am I misunderstanding something here? I thought I read a few days ago a proposal to house these folks somewhere in Otay Mesa?! Um, wouldn’t call that near any services.
      And “overrun with junkies” is just plain offensive. How many times do we have to point out that most of the unsheltered, nowadays, are not junkies?They are people who cannot afford the exorbitant rents and requirements of basic dwellings within any City. (and will just skip the uncompassionate chapter of why the addicted are undeserving of help…) I agree that our unsheltered populations need to be distributed amongst the many various neighborhoods and districts, and this is one of them that provides a good reuse of existing space. It has the potential to set a great example that can be followed by other neighborhoods and districts. So be a part of the solution rather than the obstinate objection.

   3. This Loma Portal Resident welcomes H Barracks with open arms. The mental gymnastics my neighbors play is disappointing and predictable. They will end up losing this battle and I couldn’t be happier about it.

3. Love these comments. Well done.

   There’s clearly no shortage of homeless people already at equidistant locations to most of Point Loma from the H Barracks (which is not in “actual” Point Loma, sorry). And to the extent that anyone actually uses the place, it is likely to skew highly to to more vulnerable types of homeless like women, children, and seniors that do not feel safe sleeping out in the wilds of the Midway District or Downtown.

4. Nice write up’s. Glad we heard from both sides of the issue. It’s fun to see the hypocrisy of these two writers when they disagree with the homeowners and business owners in the area. Very thoughtful mudslinging. You two are pathetic.

   1. I was thinking exactly the same thing!

   2. I wasn’t there Big J and have no idea if you were, but if what was described is accurate as far as how attendees were behaving, I’d say they were pretty pathetic in their own right.

      1. Fair enough. I agree it should be a civilized conversation. It is unfortunate that it appears it may not have been. That being said until I hear an honest write up on what happened it is difficult to know if the communities questions were being answered honestly or they were being talked around or disregarded. So until then I have to reserve judgment.

   3. I don’t understand your comment.

      You wrote, “hypocrisy of these two writers when they disagree with the homeowners and business owners in the area.” What hypocrisy are you talking about? Both writers expressed similar sentiments about how people were behaving over this issue.

      And what was the “mudslinging” you mentioned?

5. So, if H-Barracks is actually set up as a temporary facility for some of the currently unhoused in SD, it could be an opportunity to train the folks to work at the airport authority, terminal 1, TSA and the Port Authority. All within fairly reasonable walking or shuttle distance.

6. First off, poor writing by both parties. Minimal facts presented… mostly partisan accounts of what happened by writers who are trying to make the reader feel guilty they have a home.

   I feel this is a step in the right direction, and no location will be perfect. Maybe there can be a trade off of some sort… build H barracks and get a new park somewhere in the area… which will eventually be used to to shoot up heroin…

   1. “Both parties,” as you identified them, were initially identified as Rag readers,” perhaps you missed that. No one said they were writers. These were their personal accounts and opinions, they were not writing a news article.

7. Hi, just another viewpoint. Some writers have gone after the audience. Let’s take a step back.

   Isn’t it the responsibility of our glorious officials to first get the neighbors input, explain in detail the vision, then come up with a proposal? I see people putting the blame on the neighbors who have had no input whatsoever in this process! How outrageous that neighbors who live in this “rich” neighborhood and pay $12,000 to 25,000 in taxes each year want a say in their neighborhood! If you question the proposal (to which you e had no input) then you are racist, an elitist, a heartless monster, etc.

   Please consider who showed up to explain- not the mayor or the arrogant Jen Campbell. They sent underlings who really have no decision making ability whatsoever. These underlings were sent there because our leaders really don’t care about the neighborhoods and that this entire barracks proposal is an election stunt. These arrogant politicians who brought us Midway Rising, vacation rental agreement without community input, the disaster of vans along the midway (remember that disaster per Todd Gloria) want us (the citizens of Point Loma), etc., to “trust” that they will do a good job with this proposal.

   Stop going after neighbors. Our elected politicians have the responsibility to communicate with its citizens and these politicians-with all their resources- should/ can find solutions. I might be wrong, but when I looked at the city budget, we’re spending around $700 million for homeless support. Where’s it going?

   In business, we benchmark with successful stories from elsewhere. Where’s the success story with this kind of tent city?

   So, I recommend to cool it with chastisement of our neighbors who are frustrated with our leaders, and stop with the silly statements and attributes that these neighbors are heartless.

   1. Yes, our socialist class of elected officials think it’s up to them to dink and dime their ways to solving social issues at the expense of those who provide the means without their input. Well said.

      1. So the explosion of private market rate dense housing our elected officials want implement is socialist?

         1. You can twist this all you want, while elected officials entrench themselves with the building industry in the guise of affordable housing pretending oversupply will reduce rents for all but, but this thread is about H barracks.

            1. You’re the one who brought up socialism in relation to our current elected officials.
               Wouldn’t being entrenched with the building industry (a private entity) be the polar opposite of socialism?
               I didn’t twist anything, nor do you sincerely hold the opinion that I did. Ironic too because I remember one time awhile ago you accused me of being disingenuous. Also ironic is we both agree that oversupply of housing will not reduce rents. We also agree that those who advocate for it don’t truly believe it themselves.

   2. A very reasonably written comment. But, all that said, there is no excuse for the kind of behavior and comments that have been recorded here, no matter how frustrated people are. Chastising the neighbors for this is a different thing from the problem at city hall.

   3. Report to the Legislature
      Pursuant to Assembly Bill 140 (Chapter 111, Statutes of 2021)
      Statewide Homelessness Assessment
      (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2021)

      “…According to the report, the state spent $9.6 billion on government anti-homeless programs between the 2018-19 and 2020-21 fiscal years. More than half – $5.5 billion – was spent on programs “targeted at expanding the supply of affordable housing including units dedicated to people experiencing homelessness.”

      Funding came from a mix of state funds, voter-approved state bond funds, and federal dollars. The Los Angeles region received about $3 billion in funds; the San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and San Diego areas received between $500 million and $700 million each…”

      Where did San Diego put that $700 million?

8. Geez, Chris S – you describe our electeds as “our socialist class”?? Why do you call them that – makes no sense (unless you think all Democratic Party officials are “socialists” – in which case I’d ask you to get back to basics and read up on a few definitions).

   1. Ha ha I just posted the same question before seeing this.

   2. AB205 for one. Read up on that? Chris Ward got called out by Danna Givot for voting on it and backpedaling now.
      https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2024/01/30/assemblymember-ward-seeks-repeal-of-proposed-income-based-electricity-rates/

      When elected officials don’t want to hear from the constituents that basically finance the show, but yet want card blanche, as they see fit, there in lies how you say a conflict of interest? Don’t you think? Socialism is based on government planning and limitations on private control of resources. There’s not enough tax money to satisfy them it seems. So the answer becomes, take more from those who have it.

      1. That’s not the definition of socialism.

         1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

            Today’s community as a whole is government. Gavin wants to use 4 billion for immigrant healthcare. Was that a vote? People want to give blacks reparations for slavery. Was that a vote? People don’t want their private information being used to charge for utility rates. Was that a vote? People don’t want H barracks used for the homeless population. Was that a vote? Are we in a Democracy?

            1. Well, CS, we certainly don’t have socialism – that was your suggestion. Our democracy is frail and under attack. It’s a stretch to say “today’s community as a whole is government.” The US has never had direct democracy for under the theory of representative democracy, the voters, the people elect reps who then make decisions for us. Of course, getting the people to vote has been 200 years plus of challenges. At first, only white, propertied men could vote.

               You smash a whole bunch of issues together and one cannot respond to them all.

               Consider this – if you’re concerned about $$; what’s more expensive – undocumented people showing up at ERs and being treated at the rest of our expense, or – allowing undocumented folks a modicum of health care paid in advance? If more people get Medi-Cal, that’s more $$ for Calif’s health care system.

               1. Medi-Cal, like all Medicaid programs, is financed using federal and state dollars.

                  It’s at our expense while our healthcare premiums get shot up accordingly. How fair is it to pay for myself out of pocket and then others through taxes?

                  Here’s a good read on Cali state of affairs.

                  https://news.yahoo.com/gavin-newsom-turned-california-dream-192805994.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

                  Exit tax, wealth tax, the erosion of prop 13. Who pays when you’ve chased everybody out?

                  1. I’d prefer my tax dollars go to healthcare for folks in need rather than to the US military and their vast network of consultant$ and buffoon$.

                     1. Yes that’s possible through donations and write offs as an avenue. That’s a free choice. The choice in super majority decisions is wait for the next election. The economy hasn’t crashed. Employment is still strong. Inflation is being reduced. Any yet, the state, the fifth largest economy, is in a deficit and will be for several years. And you have to ask why?

                     2. Vern,
                        You mean butter, not guns?
                        That would be a dream come true.
                        With trillion dollar “defense” budgets, plus all the extra ones that get added along the way, we’re a Large Empire.
                        The Largest.
                        But it’s on the backs of so many of us, and many are now bent over double, with lousy or no healthcare.

               2. Undocumented immigrants contribute tens of billions of dollars in federal, state and local taxes each year.

                  Discussions of immigrants and public benefits often overlook the significant tax contributions made by undocumented immigrants. According to research conducted by New American Economy, in 2018 undocumented immigrants contributed $20.1 billion in federal taxes and $11.8 billion in state and local taxes.

                  The tax contributions of undocumented immigrants are critical to the viability of public health programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Between 2000 and 2011, undocumented immigrants generated a $35.1 billion surplus in the Medicare Trust Fund. States that expend the most in emergency medical care for undocumented immigrants (California, Texas, and New York) all also receive over $1 billion in state and local tax contributions from undocumented immigrants each year.
                  https://immigrationforum.org/article/fact-sheet-undocumented-immigrants-and-federal-health-care-benefits/

                  1. Between 2000 and 2011, undocumented immigrants generated a $35.1 billion surplus in the Medicare Trust Fund.

                     Uh, hello. We’re in 2024?

                     Medi-Cal is already strained by serving 14.6 million Californians – more than a third of the state’s population. Adding 764,000 more individuals to the system will certainly exacerbate current provider access problems.

                     It will cost the state over $6.5 billion annually to provide Medi-Cal to all undocumented immigrants, according to the most recent analysis by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office

                     https://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-1st-state-offer-health-insurance-undocumented-immigrants/story?id=105986377#:~:text=%22It%20will%20cost%20the%20state,ABC%20News%20in%20a%20statemenet.

                     1. I wonder if Governor Newsom is doing all those travel miles out of state hoping to get tapped for the presidency should Biden step down……..because he knows the “Californnia model” is bombing.
                        Whatever reserves in the budget that were left by Jerry Brown seem to have pretty well evaporated, there are more and more people on the streets, the cost of housing iss so bad that people are leaving the state in droves, etc. Then there’s that pesky Southern border and all the free healthcare that waits for those who come across. Instead of more personnel to process everybody comeing through, maybe it would be better just to have a big door that opens easily.

                        1. “… Newsom boasted of a $97.5 billion budget surplus in 2022, but a year later, it morphed into a $31-plus billion deficit…”

                           https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/10/california-budget-whiplash-pitfalls-forecasting/

                        2. If you have ever paid any attention to California history, you will see that the budget surpluses and deficits have gone up and down by large amounts many times over the years. The CA economy is 5th largest economy in the entire world and it shifts large. Blaming one person for something like this is nuts.

                           1. Blaming one person? Did you read the article?

                              Obviously Newsom and his budget advisors made a huge mistake in assuming that a brief surge in taxes would continue to grow.

                              But the Newsom administration was not the only entity to be fooled. The Legislature’s budget analyst, Gabe Petek, largely confirmed Newsom’s rosy 2022 projections, tabbing revenues from income and sales taxes to hit $214 billion by 2023-24, $21 billion more than the current $193 billion estimate, which may be too high.

                           2. In many cases, problems start at the top.

                     2. From Medi-Cal documents:
                        Estimate Downward Revision for the Current Year. We estimate that Medi-Cal General Fund spending will be $37 billion in 2023-24, a decrease of about $500 million (1.3 percent) compared to the 2023-24 Budget Act. This adjustment largely is driven by a lower level of estimated caseload than was projected at the time the budget was enacted.

                        Project Longer-Term Growth. We project Medi-Cal General Fund spending to increase in the remaining years of the outlook period, rising to more than $43 billion in 2027-28. This longer-term growth primarily is driven by changes in caseload, continued growth in underlying per-enrollee costs, and the ramp down of the MCO tax package. From Legislative Analyst Office https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4820

                     3. Uh hello yourself. “Undocumented immigrants contribute tens of billions of dollars in federal, state and local taxes each year.” Did you not read that?

9. H barracks, depending on timing, could be subjected to a PLA. A payback to union labor.

   https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2024/01/31/following-passage-of-measure-d-city-council-approves-citywide-project-labor-agreement/

   And a past list of what shelter projects could cost.

   https://inewsource.org/2023/06/27/san-diego-mayor-todd-gloria-homeless-shelter-strategy/

   1. An affordable housing story.

      https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2024/01/30/construction-begins-on-harrington-heights-a-270-unit-affordable-housing-project-in-east-village/

10. I was at the meeting . As a resident of Point Loma, I’m not opposed to this shelter as long as it’s a sober living environment where the residents don’t spill out into the community to loiter all day (as promised by the presenters). My greater concern are the increasing numbers of homeless in our community who do loiter, refuse shelter, have addiction problems, and are prone to violence and other criminal activities. The real underlying issues are poor enforcement and a woefully understaffed police department that often fails to respond even in emergency situations. I was very disappointed that this topic wasn’t discussed at the meeting. I feel that this is the root cause of the problem and the main reason why so many residents don’t trust our politicians. If the City and SDPD did a better job I don’t think the shelter would be an issue with residents.

11. We’re closing comments to this post.

Comments are closed.