A Challenging Outcome to the Ranch House Vote
Local Nevada County resident gives an update on the latest Ranch House development and the County Supervisors' reneging of a former agreement & continued wetlands desecration.
Editor’s Note: In my recent post regarding the Ranch House, I mentioned I would follow up with an update on last Tuesday’s County Board of Supervisors meeting regarding their decision. However, Pauli Halstead beat me to the punch below.
The only thing I have to add is that at the current rate of spending $726,000 to house each homeless (houseless) individual at the Ranch House, it would cost the county nearly $400 million ($382,602,000) to similarly accommodate the additional 527 homeless individuals as identified in the 2022 County’s Point in Time Count.
While I applaud the housing of 3 additional individuals, we are way off the mark from ever being able to address the issue in a manner that would serve the vast majority of the homeless.
Something has to seriously change at the state and county level.
A Challenging Outcome to the Ranch House Vote
I am sure the Supervisors are congratulating themselves on their unanimous vote to approve the Ranch House project. But let’s look at what happened.
First, I listened intently and agreed with all those voices in favor of supportive housing for mentally ill community members. The need for this is obvious. But, as one neighbor stated, “just not on this particular piece of property.”
Even though the county had site control, a condition of securing the grant, the property has been fraught with problems. A former owner had partially messed up the sensitive wetlands. Subsequently, the county refused to grant two former owners their projects because of the wetlands. Fast forward to 2015, the County entered into a contractual agreement with the Eden Ranch Homeowners Association, which stated, in exchange for granting an easement to the proposed solar field (established in 2016), “the existing house would remain” and “there would be no more development on the property.”
As things progressed, at the November 10th Planning Commission meeting, at a subsequent meeting with Heidi Hall, and during Tuesday’s Supervisor’s meeting, the agreement was never addressed in any way. Poof, the County conveniently ignored the agreement like it never happened.
Another glaring problem not solved in the vote is the berm containing tons of concrete and asphalt, moved from the Newtown Road project and “temporarily” dumped near the wetlands. Now, that supposedly permitted berm is described as landscaping. The trees the county planted on top of the material died because of the lack of good soil and water. Now the plan is to replant it instead of relocating the material. Kyle Smith, County Planner, stated he doesn’t know a thing about it. This was one of the main issues with the opposition to the project, the fact that this toxic material has been leaching into the wetlands and impeding water flow. Heidi Hall, an environmentalist, must ensure this gets properly remediated before new landscaping is installed.
The biggest objection to the project, other than the astronomical cost of almost $4.4 million, is that over the last fourteen years of client occupancy, sufficient support services have been lacking to monitor clients’ problematic behaviors. Giving the neighbor's phone numbers to County staff to call when there is a problem, or telling them to call law enforcement, is not solving the problem. The neighbor’s job is not to police the program. That’s the job of Behavioral Health. The No Place Like Home Grant application stated significant daily on-site support, not just meds delivered twice daily. Phebe Bell did not give great assurance that there would ever be someone on-site for sufficient time to quell the neighbor’s concerns.
Historically, the County does not have a good track record for support services with property owners who have previously leased units to clients. My personal experience as a property manager of six units in Grass Valley was a 90% failure rate because of the lack of supervision and not being able to get services to the clients in time to remediate problems. I had to call the police many times and deal with the fallout of bad behavior myself. The lack of training for housing success resulted in over twenty thousand dollars in property damage caused by several clients/tenants. The county has never offered to compensate for any of the damage. Not their problem!
So now, a promise of adequate support services for the Ranch House clients, when historically it has been lacking, falls on deaf ears. The neighbors wanted better assurances. The only thing they did get in the deal was the promise of a fence—a small bone, to say the least.
It remains to be seen whether Heidi Hall and the rest of the Supervisors, who said they hear the neighbor’s concerns, really do hear and are willing to problem-solve as the building gets constructed and clients begin to live there.
Everyone agrees that we need housing for our mentally ill community members. We also need ethical and responsible maintenance of the wetlands, beginning with removing the problem berm and installing new landscaping planted in good soil.
Most importantly, however, Ranch House neighbors need guaranteed support services on-site to ensure their safety and the peaceful enjoyment of their lives. As Phebe Bell stated, “We are committed to being good neighbors with all of our housing projects.” The ball is now in the County’s court to follow through and be a good neighbor.
Pauli Halstead
Nevada City
For background information, please visit Pauli Halstead’s three additional opinion pieces recently submitted to The Union, here, here, and here.