St. Vincent de Paul’s efforts to help people – January 30,2022 comments

In the sixth paragraph of the front page January 30 article of the Press Democrat the Society of St. Vincent De Paul of Sonoma County organization is characterized as a “slumlord”. Although the article has elements of facts, the way that the local media presented this was unfair and out of context. As the leading media in Sonoma County the Press Democrat has to be held to the same standards a legitimate media company holds the government and the rest of the community to.  In this instance they failed.

Attachments below:  SVDP document “SVDP Commons Acquisition”  (this is a clear explanation)


The characterization of St. Vincent De Paul of Sonoma County is disrespectful and out of context and therefore inaccurate. The St. Vincent De Paul of Sonoma County organization has been around for many decades, 64 years. In the mid-1980s, when no one else could feed the hungry in Santa Rosa, two people came in: Larry Ferlazzo and Linda Rayner, using the name of the Catholic Worker Organization and started feeding people out of the back of their van. As downtown businesses were concerned about the situation of hunger among the homeless, and disorganization among the service providers, they turned to the Bishop of the Diocese of Santa Rosa. The Bishop of the Diocese of Santa Rosa turned around and asked the St. Vincent De Paul organization to feed the hungry. The Diocese of Santa Rosa provided $500,000 as the foundation for what became known as the St. Vincent De Paul Dining Room. For at least 35 years this organization has been paramount to how we treat people in poverty. Even today, when Catholic Charities needed a temporary location for the Santa Rosa Homeless Services Center, SVDP allowed the primary homeless services in Santa Rosa to be housed at 610 Wilson Street, and the dining room services have changed.

Throughout this time the St. Vincent De Paul organization has run the thrift store in Rohnert Park where they clothed people like no one else in the community. For at least 10 years, if not more, the County of Sonoma has been able to send people to St. Vincent De Paul in Rohnert Park with a clothing voucher where people could pick out two sets of clothes. Other organizations have had similar arrangements but it’s only St. Vincent De Paul who has reached out to the Human Service Department and actively engaged to allow people to come and get free clothes in this manner.

When the County needed an organization with the capacity to house people after the situation at the Joe Rodota Trail they turned to St. Vincent De Paul to run the Los Guillicos Village which Jack Tibbetts and Chris Grabill led quite successfully. The people of Oakmont and the Press Democrat can review the activities surrounding this facility and acknowledged that the County and St. Vincent De Paul have responded well in that situation.

In the “COVID world” it was St. Vincent De Paul who stepped up early to run one of the two trailer encampments that are currently at the fairgrounds. Those locations have housed people with more compassion and more practical implementation than anyone else in the county. We should also fairly cite the DEMA organization or other shelter providers in this effort as well.  The actual day-to-day support of the vulnerable individuals at the fairground trailer location has been exemplary and reflects the St. Vincent De Paul organization and staff in how they compassionately work with people.

The documentation and series of events which St. Vincent De Paul has now been called upon to release to the community further validates their position of compassion and practical know-how in serving the most of vulnerable people who live in our community. St. Vincent De Paul should be lauded and funded in such a way that they can continue this important work.   I invite anyone to read the correspondence which St. Vincent De Paul is now making available and judge, NO not “judge”, but think for themselves and figure out a way that each person reading can help to make things better.


Further ways to look at the Homelessness Service system

If the media is going to quote Mr. Tibbetts salary, they should quote salary next time for Burbank Housing ($200,000).  How about the director of Midpen at $500,000?  How about the salary of members of the BOS?  To imply that Mr. Tibbetts is paid highly by quoting $100,000 is absurd, unless we are going to quote the salaries of other non-profit directors.  In this same process, we will find out the Catholic Charities salaries are very low in comparison.  It is important for transparency and public understanding that the details be widely shared so the system as a whole can be understood.

The media should cite the estimated costs of this project (Under $20 million) versus other construction of 54 units which would be $27-32 million? 

I do not recall the PD analyzing the “millions in public dollars” that other non-profits get.  This is not a slam at the non-profit organizations we have.  Our community, and our municipalities rely on having a variety of non-governmental organizations to deliver direct services, and to assure flexibility as conditions change.  It is a disservice to provide inadequate compensation for the many fine professionals who do this work.  We should remember that quality service costs money because people are devoting their lives and their livelihoods to achieve solutions. 

Another key question for the media and community to ask about the services to help people who are without an affordable home – “How typical are these problems?”  Do we seek knowledge and understanding of the problems at the same level at facilities run by other shelter and supportive housing environments?  The answer to that is “yes” but in different ways.  We all have to be wondering if whatever is going on at Gold Coin is just the way it is in a poor social system.

Solutions are elusive, but transparency and respect lead to discussions and dialogue. Dialogue leads to plans and plans can achieve measurable results.  A review of page 7 of the recent Upstream Investments Portrait of Sonoma is a current example of long term efforts yielding actual positive results.    

I would say to all the media, while you are pursuing all this, be sure to articulate how the community is planning for returning the people to the streets who are currently in the County owned trailers on County Fairgrounds property.  We can be sure the plan will expect SVDP to open those refurbished doors as soon as it happens. 



(received from Jack Tibbetts, 1/28/22)

From the outset, the goal of St. Vincent de Paul has been to prevent any and all displacements and ‘returns to homelessness’, while also moving forward with a complete remodel/rehabilitation of the property for the purposes of permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless.

When St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) was in escrow to buy the property “the Gold Coin,” we were told that there were no residents in the property disclosures, only hotel guests. To verify this, we hired Autotemp Consulting, a housing and relocation group with housing attorneys on staff, who sent in an independent third party to verify this claim and conduct relocation interviews. We knew at the time that the relocation of residents would be costly and complex. What we discovered was that the facility had been red tagged (we can show the document upon request and you will notice it was issued prior to our taking ownership) by the city due to substandard living conditions and numerous health, safety, and building code violations that was being experienced by about 13 households. These people had been living there continuously for months, or in most cases, years. More disturbing, we found out during the investigation that the sellers had begun illegally evicting people, without providing the required assistance, to avoid losing the sale. At this point, we as an organization had a choice to make:

1.) We could forego intervening in the evictions. The sellers would carry all legal and financial liability, and we would not incur the relocation expenses during construction that we estimated at the time to range from a minimum of $225,000 to $350,000, nor the cost for repair, operations, and maintenance. OR

2.) We could offer people continued residence, and we could seek and find the people who were evicted into homelessness and offer them a place if they wished to return, and work to identify funding to sustain the effort as moved along during the development process.

Of course, we picked the second option. I (Jack) went out and found the parties that were evicted and offered them a space in units that met basic health and safety standards if they wished to come back. One did, one did not. The group that wished to come back was the family in Room One (we found them living in their car). There were a couple others I could not make contact with after repeated attempts. The other mother and child I was able to contact found alternate residence with family in Lake County, and we offered financial assistance as added support to aid in her transition, which they accepted. Luckily, the remaining tenants were not yet evicted, so we held a community meeting and notified them all that we would begin repairing their units to meet basic code requirements, and we would also make investments in interior and exterior finishes (we did this while still in escrow and assumed the financial risk of beginning the repairs). While repairs were being made, we expended $8,000 on temporary hotel stays so people, like the folks in Room One, would not be homeless.

Right after close of escrow, we took title to the property and we continued to work on the units that were occupied, as well as a few additional rooms in case we needed to move people around. At that time (December 20th , 2019), St Vincent immediately began working with City of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement and Housing Authority staff to find a path to achieving temporary occupancy and improving the units to meet minimum health and safety standards, so that the red tag could be lifted. We did this acknowledging that the property was in need of a total overhaul and remodel to meet St. Vincent de Paul standards. At that same time, SVDP also began working with our architect and engineer to develop plans for the full remodel, and we continued to raise the funds necessary to achieve it.

Understanding the design, development, review, and permitting process can be extremely complex and lengthy, SVDP worked with the City of Santa Rosa to establish temporary occupancy in the interim to prevent displacement of the residents, and this was successfully achieved shortly after acquisition. The city took the fair step of “yellow-tagging” the units, which meant they were safe for occupancy, but would remain under continued code enforcement surveillance by the city. I believe they did this to ensure we were actively pursuing redevelopment, which we did, so they continued to monitor the situation and continued to repeatedly certify the units for occupancy. They approved occupancy for all of the units that are inhabited by residents today.

Some of the repairs that were conducted include: repairing drywall, repairing and replacing of aging gas lines, application of fresh paint to interior walls and ceilings, replace water heaters and bathroom fixtures, provision of new beds and furnishings, provision of kitchenette appliances, repair of heating units, clearing of debris from the units and the property (roughly 10 debris bins worth), repair of windows and doors, installation of a mini-split heating and cooling system to meet health and safety code, and we conducted some minor landscaping and established a community garden plot. Finally, we repaired and replaced all smoke detectors and installed carbon monoxide alarms. Subsequently, the units were inspected by Santa Rosa Code Enforcement and the Fire Marshall and were approved for ongoing temporary occupancy during development.

To help curb the crime that was a regular occurrence there, we hired a security firm and paid them $34,466 to-date to provide nightly patrols. SVDP also hired Clark Pest Control for interior treatments, exterior trapping, and ongoing pest management services, and has spent $3,425 to mitigate ongoing pest concerns. These services continue and have been made available as requested by residents. (The documentation of all pest management services is available, as are denied access to some residents’ units to conduct pest control in units that have a lot of belongings. We also have documentation of conversations with certain residents about clearing debris from their units to prevent continued infestation in our Manager’s Log).

After the initial inspections by the City of Santa Rosa during escrow, inspections were performed again to renew the temporary occupancy certificate for each occupied unit. The dates of inspections occurred in February 2019, October 2019, December 2019, August 2020, 3 and again in August 2021. (These inspections were documented by Santa Rosa staff Cindy Shalich, Mark Maystrovich, and David Gouin).

During this same time, Saint Vincent de Paul achieved a swift zoning clearance (under assembly bill 2162) for the property to allow for the planned future use of permanent supportive housing, and SVDP began the permitting process with the City of Santa Rosa for a complete remodel and rehab of the property to meet all current code requirements and significantly improve the quality and appearance of the property. After a lengthy 11-month review of our submitted plans, we finally received approved building permits at the end of September 2021, and the last of the fire Marshall’s required changes were approved as of December 1, 2021. We are now clear to begin construction. The project is now “shovel ready” – it is just awaiting final funding from Homekey2.

It is relevant to note that during the first six months of our ownership, we did not charge any resident rent at the Gold Coin. We did this, for two reasons: First, we knew we could not in good conscious charge people for living there in the condition in which we inherited it – not until we invested in basic renovations. Second, there were a couple of parties who were not working, had no income, and could not pay rent. Once the basic renovations were completed in June of 2019, we began charging rents consistent with HUD’s regional standards for the Extremely Lowincome category, and consistent with our HEAP deed-restriction. Additionally, we never have charged for internet, TV, or utilities.

Studios are charged a flat rent rate of $568 per month, and the occupied two-bedroom (Room One – [NAME3]) is being charged a flat rate of $720 per month. Every party at the Gold Coin paid less under our ownership than the previous, with the exception of [NAME4] who was charged $400 per month by the previous owner, because he had an informal agreement with the previous owner to work at the Thai Restaurant in exchange for reduced rent. Other than [NAME4], the next lowest rate was charged to [NAME5] ($600), [NAME6] ($700), [NAME7] ($800), [NAME8] and [NAME9] ($1,100), [NAME3] ($1,200), [NAME10] and [NAME11] ($1,140), and [NAME2] and [NAME1] ($1,600). As you can see, not only did conditions at the Gold Coin improve, but rents were also reduced and, in many cases, reduced by roughly 50%.

For people who could not pay, we offered them employment. [NAME2] was hired to work at one of our shelters earning $19.00 per hour, [NAME8] was hired to do maintenance at the property, and [NAMEX] was hired to aid with maintenance and landscaping around the property. [NAMEX] has since found alternate income and [nameX] does not work for us any longer, and [confidential].  Many residents have also accrued debts, including [name], which we have never acted on.

We push for compliance, and we have gotten people on partial payment plans. We have also worked with the County COVID rent relief program to help people get current. We take every action possible to avoid eviction. Eviction is not who we are. As of April, 2021, [NAME2] was 4 in arrears $4,158 (roughly 8 months’ rent), but is thankfully now current due to the COVID program, which our property manager arranged. [NAME3] was paying small portions at a time as she could, [NAME6] was in arrears $8,338 (roughly 14 months), [NAME5] is in arrears $12,350 (roughly 19 months), and [NAME8] and [NAME9] are currently in arrears $6,499 for 12 months. The only person we have removed from the property is [NAME6], because after many documented attempts and posted notices to get him to sign a lease, he continually evaded us and was unresponsive. He just never signed a lease to become a tenant. Therefore, he was not evicted. His belongings were removed for trespass. Further, it was determined he had stopped living in the units for months, he began living with his girlfriend off-site, and was just using his room as a personal storage unit. We have documentation to back up all of these claims that proves we made every effort to bring [NAME6] into compliance.

Rents are not meant to sustain the temporary housing operation. Because of these unforeseen tenant occupancies, SVDP has expended $243,925 on operations ($22,534 of which was spent on direct resident aid) but have only received a total of $85,424 in rents since we began charging in June. We have also invested an additional $251,865 on direct expenses for renovation, repair, and maintenance. These costs do not include all of the permitting and predevelopment expenses which totals $361,930. All expenditures on this project made to-date are above $1,635,866.


Throughout the pandemic, SVDP has made every effort to comply with all Covid safety protocols, shelter in place guidelines, and moratoriums on evictions, etc. The pandemic has been extremely challenging for our staff and especially the people we serve, who often experience intense behavioral health, substance abuse, and trauma-related challenges. St Vincent has offered masks, food, Safeway gift cards, holiday gifts and gift cards, and coordinated visits by Sonoma County public health workers for access testing/prevention/vaccine clinics. Across our different facilities, St Vincent has been proud to have some of the highest vaccine rates, and lowest case rates of any provider in the state. No Residents were evicted for hoarding/compliance challenges. Previous to COVID, we conducted preemptive noticed annual inspections, in addition to doing inspections in response to resident needs, or code enforcement complaints. During COVID, it became our policy to only conducting inspections upon request by residents and to follow all public health guidelines and recommendations. Despite COVID, annual inspections of smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors were completed, and in-person staff responses still occurred, as you will see in our Manager’s Log.

A few of our residents do struggle with hoarding and behavioral health related issues which can seriously affect the ongoing everyday maintenance and cleanliness of units. St Vincent staff has worked with these residents on an ongoing basis to remove trash and debris as permitted by Covid protocols, with proper notice given, and with the understanding that for these residents who struggle with hoarding and behavioral health challenges. Attempts must be made to work with them to achieve compliance with fire safety codes, while also preventing any and all displacement or returns to homelessness. The frequency of in-person interactions and interior inspections/staff observations have been much less frequent due to Covid safety concerns, but still occurring as you will see in our Manager’s Log. Any and all issues reported to St Vincent via residents are addressed as quickly as possible. On a few occasions, our staff has worked with the tenants to remove trash and debris from in and around their units.

Ongoing challenges such as hoarding and pest management have often been addressed by St Vincent without prompting or complaint. In many cases St Vincent has had to give notice to initiate work or fire alarm inspections after residents have repeatedly declined us access. On 7/30/21, a resident who was experiencing a mental health crisis started yelling and screaming and threatening the repairman and staff who were attempting to repair a broken window after we gave notice to make repairs to the windows of the unit, so the work was postponed, and further notices were posted and met with continual denial of entry (see log).

The site has also experienced a recent surge in vandalism by outside actors, and St Vincent is working to repair these damages as they occur. One man who is the nephew of the previous owners, but is not a resident, has been returning to vandalize the property. He suffers from significant mental health challenges. To address this, we have increased private security patrols and are working with both the police and security to prevent further disruption to the property and its residents. (Prior to receiving the PD’s email inquiry, St. Vincent had given 48-hour notice to residents for scheduled fire safety/occupancy inspections to begin on Sunday 1/23/22, and additional inspections were scheduled with City of Santa Rosa Code Enforcement, for all occupied units, to occur on January 28th, 2022. St Vincent is addressing any and all issues observed. An inspection report from 1/23/2022 is available.

The reality is, sometimes it is difficult to get residents to comply with our requests to remove debris from their rooms, or allow for inspections, until they see that the city inspectors are coming and could red tag the units, forcing their eviction. Why? We believe it is because they also know that we will seek to address their hoarding issues, so the inspections can be seen by residents as a causal factor to them to lose valued belongings. However, we must do it, because the presence of over-abundant debris increases the chances of rodent infestation and/or mold. Understanding this, we have offered temporary storage of belongings in separate, unoccupied, rooms. We extended this offer to [NAME2] as well as the [NAME3] Family in the past.

Development, Relocation, & Recent Complaints

Throughout the development and permitting process, St Vincent has offered nicer and bigger renovated units to any resident with special needs or requests. Many of our residents have accepted offers to move to nicer freshly painted units on site, such as one resident who was undergoing chemotherapy and needed a ground floor unit and a new larger bed, and another resident who wanted to move upstairs to a freshly repaired unit with a full cooktop/oven. In this 6 individual’s case, we also availed her with resources for palliative care. Sadly, she has since passed away at the hospital at the end of her treatment.

One resident, [NAME2], communicated to St Vincent in May 2021 that she would like assistance in obtaining a housing voucher and COVID rental assistance. St Vincent helped and facilitated a connection to a Housing Authority representative, Cindy Schalich. Ms. Schalick offered rental assistance, but in order to receive it, Ms. Schalick instructed [NAME2] to move next door to an eligible room that had two sinks, thus meeting the definition of an efficiency unit making it eligible for assistance. Unfortunately, [NAME2] communicated that she did not want to move, and did not understand why she couldn’t obtain the assistance in her current unit. It was also explained to her that, upon receiving a Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, she would have to move to the efficiency unit at that time. To help [NAME2] obtain the assistance and voucher, SVDP staff even offered to allow her to temporarily use of her current unit to store her belongings while she moved into the qualifying unit next door on her own time (city staff deemed both units suitable for occupancy).

However, in the presence of city staff, [NAME2] declined the offer to move next-door to the nicer efficiency unit and decided to stay in her existing unit which, which resulted in her being denied rental assistance by the city. Despite this, SVDP still did not evict. A couple of months later, we were able to pivot to the County rental assistance program, and she was helped. I, Jack, seldom communicate with [NAME2], but after hearing this, I emailed her imploring her to reconsider the opportunity she was foregoing. (This refusal was documented by city code enforcement officer Cindy Schalich, and we have emails from myself to [NAME2] encouraging her to accept the new unit for voucher eligibility that we can make available to you). [NAME2] is now on the Section 8 Housing Voucher waiting list.

Next (Final) Steps in the Stage II Construction and Major Renovations Phase

In partnership with Autotemp Consulting, we have recently held a community meeting and completed interviews with all residents and concluded a two-month period of open comment that began on January 10th, 2022. During this two-month period, no comments from residents were received. Additionally, a resident meeting was held and feedback from residents was collected, in accordance with the relocation process, to prepare for the start of construction and renovation. In these interviews, meetings, and comment period, all residents were given education/tutorial on their legal rights under the Federal Housing Relocation Act, and our estimated plans for construction timeline in 2022.

During this open comment period, no repair needs were communicated to SVDP by residents. In early December 2021, we did receive three requests for pest services in three different units – Clark pest control was notified immediately and performed full interior treatments on 12/16/2021 in these three units according to their pest assessments. During that same period, we increased the volume of bait stations/traps/treatments throughout the property to further prevent pests. No further complaints or requests for services were received. (All pest management invoices will be provided upon request).

If desired, we can provide you with our relocation plan, relocation assistance narrative, and development plan. These documents are also available in our submittal packet for the Homekey2 HCD Grant. We expect to begin construction as soon as possible after approval of Homekey funding. If approved, our signed contractor, Martinez Construction, is ready to mobilize within 60 days. In the unlikely event that we are not eligible for HCD funding (we fully expect to be funded based on the projects’ score, which is already the highest in our funding region – higher than all other applicants – already approved or pending), we will immediately resume construction loan financing as we had originally intended before the ‘notice of funding availability’ was released for Homekey2. We never planned to apply for Homekey, because we were so far down the underwriting path with Summit State Bank that we just continued on that path until we were approached by the City of Santa Rosa Planning Staff who asked that we apply as their nonprofit partner. We determined that applying for Homekey2 funding would benefit the timeline and quality of the project with more voucher income that could be reinvested into supportive services, so we accepted the City’s offer and have been working through the application process with them.

Final submittal is expected the week of 1/24, and HCD is required to begin releasing funds 45 days after submittal, per their own internal deadline. Appropriate notice will be given to all residents, and their rights will be honored regarding relocation benefits, and prevention of displacement and ‘returns to homelessness’ are paramount.

When we acquired the property at 2400 Mendocino Ave., our main goal was a swift construction timeline and full occupancy, to serve those most in need. And although our project has progressed much faster than other similar projects. It has been frustrating to experience the lengthy permitting and approval process even for a motel rehab, which we largely attribute to COVID closures/reduced hours of the Planning Department.

In the interim, we have worked with residents on ongoing maintenance and repairs to maintain the temporary occupancy certificate according to Santa Rosa City Code Enforcement requirements. We also raised funds for the immediate repairs and initial renovation of the units in the two-story tenplex, which has received significant investment. We wholeheartedly acknowledge that this property is in urgent need of a full remodel and rehabilitation, and SVDP has made every effort to expedite this process for our residents, our donors, and the community. But until construction is completed, our priority has been to bring back those who were wrongfully evicted, or faced eviction, by the previous owner, and prevent more chronic homelessness. This process has been truly challenging, and the outcome will be worth it when chronically homeless individuals will finally have a permanent home. Additionally, we currently have clients at Los Guilicos Village with active vouchers, who have been unable to find placement and are in limbo, due to what we expect is unspoken voucher discrimination and stigma.

In addition to the funding we are seeking from HCD, we were recently approved by the Continuum of Care for $308,000 in recurring annual funding for permanent supportive services, which will provide a solid foundation for abundant wraparound services for the residents. 8 Voucher income we receive will further strengthen our services budget. Voucher income is projected to bring in an additional $340,000, for a total operating budget of roughly $571,300 per year.

Our project is coming together and is in its final stretch. If approved by HCD, it should take roughly 8- months until permanent occupancy. We look forward to having more permanent homes available, specifically for these folks who have worked hard to survive and persist through their struggles, obtain good vouchers, and try to find a better life for themselves.

I hope this background provides a strong context for you that underscores the unplanned difficulties we’ve experienced, but also emphasizes the efforts we have made to create a habitable and consistent living environment for the residents until they can return to the final development. Since our discovery that was made while in escrow, we have made every effort to elevate their situation from what it was and uphold our commitment to the existing residents, as well as completing the project so that more chronically homeless people can benefit, also. We believe we have significantly improved their situation, but we have never abandoned our promise to complete Phase II, which is the standards we hold ourselves to.

Should you want any documentation to prove our claims, we can provide you with the following:

• City’s red tag document that was issued to the previous owners that our efforts and investment while in escrow countered;

• Organization financials showing the funds expended on interim renovations;

• Funds expended on operations to provide basic support for the residents and complex oversight;

• Documentation showing maintenance, repairs, and pest control we have conducted upon request of residents, or upon our own volition, based on our own observations;

• All noticing to residents of inspections;

• Documented interactions with residents where we have communicated health and safety issues they need to uphold, including hoarding and trash abatement;

• Documented interactions where we have been denied access or experienced hostility from residents that left us with one option: eviction, but we declined given their eventual return to homeless, and at a time clouded by the pandemic;

• Documentation of multiple attempts made to communicate with [NAME10] to get him to obtain a lease, as well as proper certified noticing to evict;

• Documentation of rents paid to the previous owners, versus current rates charged, based on HUD’s Extremely low-income category (the lowest possible);

• Documentation from the City of Santa Rosa passing repeated inspections;

• Email documentation with residents that encourage positive outcomes, such as how to obtain housing vouchers;

• Partial payment plans given to residents to help them get current at rates they can afford, in order to avoid eviction, but help SVDP offer universal application of rent rules, as outlined in the lease agreements, to meet the requirements of state law (e.g. any rent leniency offered to one tenant must be offered to all);

• Communications with public health officers to coordinate COVID testing;

• Signed tenant agreements highlighting their affirmation to adhere to community rules and guidelines, including their requirement to notify us of health and safety issues for immediate remediation, such as mold and pest infestation.

If you have heard a complaint from a resident, it is likely that we can provide evidence of steps we took to address their needs, so please don’t hesitate to ask. We will transparently provide what we have. We strongly believe we have always acted in good faith with our residents every day since we purchased the property. We believe our actions, as evidenced above, are the not the actions taken (or, rather, not taken) by absentee, neglectful, or predatory landlords. We do our best to be responsive to the needs of our residents as they come up. We have always taken actions to proactively address their health and safety when reported to us or discovered by our staff. We have expended significant funds on the property to improve it, despite the fact that our repairs will be torn up during the final renovation phase and redone. We have been accommodating to numerous and ongoing lease violations, including failure to pay – some failures to pay have extended for up to two years. When residents couldn’t pay, we either offered to provide employment and/or connected them with resources such as the COVID rental assistance fund or Housing Choice Voucher waitlist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have pushed our architect, engineers, the city, our donors, contractor, community partners, and ourselves to expedite the Phase II renovation as quickly as possible. No time has been wasted in that pursuit.

I hope that this information accurately, fairly, and transparently communicates to you how we have approached this situation. Given the constraints, we have done our best to improve the residents’ living situation from the one we inherited three years ago, and we remain committed to getting them the completed project we’ve promised.

Sincerely, Jack Tibbetts Executive Director, St. Vincent de Paul


Embers glowing for a year – Memories of the Sonoma County Wildfire 2017

Embers glowing for a year.  My thoughts today go out to all our neighbors who suffered from the Wildfire.  I lost a house full of memories.  It was the place where my dear Anne died.  I had moved to Petaluma so  bore less loss than so many others.  A key thing for which I am grateful is that I did not lose my art;  I know several accomplished artists who lost their body of work.  They are on my mind today. 

I remain on the Hidden Valley list serve. All the stages of grief and tedium can be found in the e-mails shared, 1,208 or 3.3 e-mails per day.  A review shows the path of grief, recovery, and determination of my neighbors.

I have deep appreciation for all our political leaders whom I watched in the midst of the Wildfire.  For a year they have dedicated themselves to large and small efforts to serve the people of our community.  They deserve our appreciation.  I want to say they worked tirelessly, but I know they worked whether they were tired or not. Thank you.

Although I am appreciative of the first responders who did their jobs, I miss the appreciation that should be given to the second responders.  There are a great number of County employees, City employees, and people who work for other jurisdictions who worked for the entire fire, and now the entire year, serving with dedication and effectiveness.  I know hundreds of people who work in services through our non profits and I recognize many business people who have stepped up to help.  Our shared recovery and individual well-being were greatly enhanced by the millions of dollars in generous contributions.  Our society has a culture of heroes which should include each of us who assured that love was thicker than smoke.

I mourn for those who died.  This was one of life’s great tragedies which will carry down through generations among their families and friends.  I was at the emergency operations center and took some of the calls where the deaths were reported.  These neighbors and friends bore the greatest cost of this tragedy. 

Although the embers are now ash, it is right to call to mind the goodness of our people who responded when we were all in need.

Poetry from the fire 

Among the flame then ash

A measure of time


Fire photos

My house’s ashes


A list of homeless and housing reports about Sonoma County November 2017

This is not a full list but it is a notable summary.  I imagine the solution could be crowd sourced if anyone wanted to thoroughly study all these and give some new insights or actionable steps.

Recently there have been some very significant reports about homelessness issued concerning Sonoma County.

These include:

  • a bay area overview
  • The Homeless Talk focus group report
  • the League of Women Voters report
  • the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ project to reform the Continuum of Care.
In addition to that, just prior to the Sonoma County fires (October 2017)  the homeless system was completely changed to create the Coordinated Entry System(staffed by Catholic Charities). Before that, the City of Santa Rosa changed the way homeless were treated with infractions and misdemeanors and they County and Santa Rosa advocated a Housing First model.
Good overview
SPUR – The Urbanist – Homelessness in the Bay Area
Homeless Talk => [see bottom of page]
Affordable Housing and Homelessness in Sonoma County
Homeless Policy Workshop Sonoma BOS August 22, 2017
homeless were treated with infractions and misdemeanors
Housing First model.
Iain De Jong has been a key consultant in Santa Rosa
In 2016 the held the Homes for All Summit
2017 Homeless Count Results
Survey 2016 Showing public understanding of housing – The last few questions are “fun”

Santa Rosa – Infractions to Misdemeanors process critique

Although the City of Santa Rosa did not cite the Santa Rosa Homeless Collective in the staff report or at the City Council there is a clear link to the Santa Rosa Homeless Collective Accountability Committee – Final Report March 29, 2017 Recommendation #3.

The report cites a business survey of 80 businesses. No methodology or references are provided in the report.

More importantly no data over time for the number of infractions is given as to the basis of the Collective recommendation or the Staff Report for the Council.

The lack of linkage and citation may be the belief that members of the City Council do not want the Collective to be cited because there is no Brown Act nexus, hence recommendations provided have a different standard for consideration.  If, however, the Council members did in fact use the report they should at least have discussed it openly.

The Santa Rosa Homeless Collective is also sponsored OrgCode Trainings in Sonoma County, Summit on Homeless Solutions and follow up trainings.

The Santa Rosa Homeless Collective includes the following people: (included based on the web site and appearing in meeting notes or correspondence. Several of these people are no longer in these roles.)


Participants Listed:

Jenny Abramson, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County

Amy Appleton, SHARE Sonoma County

Lea Barron- Thomas, West End Neighborhood Association

Dick Carlile, Carlile-Macy

Susan Castillo, Behavioral Health Department, Sonoma County

Caitlyn Childs, Social Advocates for Youth

Continuum of Care, Sonoma County

Lee Dibble, Santa Rosa Together

Michelle Edwards, Boys & Girls Clubs, Central Sonoma County

Robert Etherington, Santa Rosa Junior College

Exchange Bank

Willow Farey, American Medical Response,

David Guhin, City of Santa Rosa

David Gouin, City of Santa Rosa, Planning and Economic Development

Danial Hage, consultant

Kris Hoyer, Probation Department, Sonoma County

Jennielynn Holmes, Catholic Charities

Chris Keys, Redwood Gospel Mission

Akash Kalia, owner, Palms Inn

Jenni Klose, Santa Rosa City Schools

Mark Krug, consultant

Jim Leddy, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County

Laurie McFadden, American Medical Response

Ray Navarro, Captain, Police Department, Santa Rosa

Ernesto Olivares, Santa Rosa City Council

Kathleen Pozzi, Public Defender’s Office, Sonoma County

Heidi Prottas, Sonoma County Task Force on the Homeless,

Railroad Square Business Owner

Tom Robertson, business owner

Janet Rogers, Santa Rosa Metro Chamber

John Sawyer, Santa Rosa City Council

Tom Schwedhelm, Santa Rosa City Council

Hannah Scott, Burbank Housing

Sonoma County Chiefs of Police Association

Brian Staebell, Sonoma County District Attorney’s office

Steve Suter, Fire Department, Santa Rosa

Steve Thomas, Tickler & Thomas, former SRPD

Katrina Thurman, Social Advocates for Youth

Jack Tibbetts, Santa Rosa City Council and St. Vincent de Paul Society

Holly Trujillo, Community Development Commission, Sonoma County

Jeff Weaver, Police Department, Sebastopol

Karen Weeks, Design Review Board, appointed by John Sawyer, Urban Community Partnership worked for the city of Santa Rosa as a housing specialist in the Economic Development and Housing Department developing the Neighborhood Revitalization Program, homeless programs and affordable housing projects

Liana Whisler, jail sergeant, Sheriff’s Office, Sonoma County

Shirley Zane, Board of Supervisors, Sonoma County

On May 2, 2017 the Santa Rosa City Council conducted a study session


This Study Session will provide the City Council with an overview of the City’s existing ordinances regarding quality of life in the City, and of past, current and proposed practices to enforce those ordinances.

The staff report is here:

The video of May 2 QOL session is here:

On August 8 the Santa Rosa City Council approved going forward with reinstating a policy of allowing law enforcement officers to issue misdemeanors rather than just infractions for what are called Quality of Life Infractions (QOL).

The staff report is notable in that it is little changed from the May report. It is here:

Gerry La Londe-Berg testimony 08/08/17 [Over 3 minute version]

“The City of Santa Rosa should not change its laws considering people who are homeless until it has done everything it can possibly do to mitigate the situation. Increasing penalties penalizes many people for no good reason.  The law as suggested for change today does not serve the people who we are trying to get off the streets and make it to productive citizenship. With acknowledgment of what is being planned, increasing the instruments of control are not the best step.  To be fair the data must first indicate this is the proper step.

Please identify on the City’s web site all the public bathrooms open during the day and which are open at night.

These particular changes to the city regulations were developed by the Santa Rosa Homeless Collective.  Transparency is what is needed.  It is unclear to me the genesis of who thought this would be a good idea.  I would like to have a conversation with them.  Better yet, I would like them to have a conversation which is documented with people who are homeless and who are suffering and who are standing by while you make such a decision as you consider tonight.

Homelessness in Santa Rosa will not be solved by increasing costs at the jail and increasing costs to the individuals who have no money and are therefore living homeless on the streets of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County.

Exactly what do you hope to accomplish with this law?

The 25 or 28 goals you have spelled out or not prominent enough everywhere. You have not achieved a level of transparency which would tell me the Catholic Charities is doing a good job; I know personally from close observation that Catholic Charities is doing good job and has done so since 1985.

If any Community can solve homelessness, the lack of housing for people who need housing, Santa Rosa and Sonoma County can do it they can set the example for everyone everywhere at least in the United States.

I call upon the city council and the alumni of leadership Santa Rosa and the advocates who are both living on the streets and helping to support the people who are living on the streets we must all come together to find out the 98% that we can agree on.”


Here’s the video of Tuesday’s 08/08/17 hearing:
Presentation begins at 1:22:18
Council Questions begins at 1:31:30
Public Comment begins at 1:52:44
Council Discussion begins at 3:01:40 – 3:36:23

As of 170816 Homeless Action! Has signatures opposed to this move of 818 people on an on-line petition and 97 who signed personally.

Perhaps we should all study the extensive actions under the Homeless Emergency and not artificially separate QOL issues from Homelessness,

RESOLUTION – EXTENSION OF PROCLAMATION OF LOCAL HOMELESS EMERGENCY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended by the Housing and Community Services Department that the Council, by resolution, approve an extension of Resolution No. 28839 which formally proclaimed a local homeless emergency within Santa Rosa. Regular Meeting Agenda and Summary Report City of Santa Rosa Page 6 of 11 City Council AUGUST 15, 2017 Staff Report Resolution Presentation Attachments

Staff Report on Homeless Emergency 08/15/17It is impressive what has been done.

The next step, according to the Sean McGuin, City Manager, is to return to council with an MOU (memorandum of understanding) with the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office and a request for money that is not in the budget.

Notes after the August 8, 2017 meeting:

The final outcome was that they will go ahead with the change. They were not scheduled to vote, they were just reviewing a policy renewal which they are now billing as simply a return to practice prior to 2012 as they said at the May 2nd meeting. The large number of Advocates was not only diverse and well-spoken but they covered a lot of territory. It seems to me now there was a major misunderstanding and miscommunication because the city staff is presenting things in a rather broad brush manner. So they lump together weed abatement and urinating in public. Most of the council members including Chris Rogers and Jack Tibbetts we’re supportive of the change and stated their concerns.

The staff report from 08/08/17 is almost exactly the same as the staff report from May 2nd with no changes and in particular there is no data of any kind presented.  Somewhat surprisingly Ernesto Olivares even did a long statement concerning the need for data which would give us accountability.  Their basic position is that this is a tool to be used which will only be used in problematic recurrent situations.

Without Baseline transparent data there is no way to judge success.  The City of Santa Rosa has this capacity but fails to use it in circumstances where it is not convenient – even though is is already collected in various data systems.

See: Tackling Homelessness with Data: The City of Santa Rosa, California

Another somewhat false hope that was brought up by most of them was the idea that restorative justice practices could be used in the Misdemeanor Court cases of people.  From my opinion if they can’t have subtlety and accuracy in the ordinances that they have, they’re not giving the judges the tools that they need to understand the intent of the laws. Judges have no recollection, or even consideration, of compassionate statements of intent made during City Council meetings.

So basically, the City of Santa Rosa is talking out of both ends of the spectrum and they think that they’re trying to do something useful while they add a level of threat.  Without accurate transparent baseline data there really is no way to measure success.


And because you read to the end you found the photos.

The Faces of the Housing crisis

What Homeless Hill looked like before the organized encampment – Note the dates

The recent encampment – From Greg Fearon