The Twisted Logic Of Merced’s City Council

Posted: August 9, 2009 in Bureauacracy, Goals, Government, Homeless Shelters, Homelessness, Housing, Politics, Stupidity

It irritates me to no end when I read that some local government comes to the consensus that homelessness is an issue which should be addressed in their community, but then do nothing.

Such is the case in Merced, California.

Last week, the Merced City Council held a "special session" to discuss the city’s goals and priorities.  

According to an article in the Merced Sun-Star, the cities top goals were,

"… keeping the public safe, fighting gangs, reducing graffiti, reviewing the city’s organization structure, negotiating new contracts with the four unions and looking for ways the city can reduce its energy consumption…"

Homelessness was also discussed at the "special session." It was, in fact, given more discussion time than any other issue.

Council members agreed that "something needs to be done." All the same, it’s "priority rating" was not "formally elevated" and it remained low on the list of issues to be addressed.

To justify leaving homelessness as a low priority issue, Councilman Bill Spriggs said,

"We’re not a social services agency and it becomes tricky when we try to be."

Other members of the city council concurred with Councilman Spriggs’ sentiment.

However, in order to give the appearance that they were going to eventually get around to addressing homelessness, the City Council said they would,

"… take the lead on helping the area’s homeless people with the caveat that other governments step up their efforts as well."

The article pointed out that John Carlisle, the city’s Mayor Pro Tem, had introduced a plan for using an apartment building which is currently owned by the city and converting it into temporary housing for the homeless. There was, however, one stipulation to the plan: it would "require" local non-profit groups to help in caring for the homeless.

There are a number of things I find hypocritical and disingenuous about the Merced City Council’s approach to homelessness in their community.

First, their agreement that something needs to be done to address the issue, but then not giving it a higher priority.

It grates loudly in my mind that in Merced, "reducing graffiti" ranks higher than reducing homelessness.

According to HUD’s latest Annual Homeless Assessment Report To Congress, Merced County has a total homeless population of 2641. Of those, 2420 are "unsheltered" – meaning they literally live on the streets.

It also bothers me that the Merced City Council is willing to "take the lead" in assisting the area’s homeless population, but only providing that "other governments step up their efforts as well."

By stipulating such a provision, it gives the appearance that Merced’s elected leaders are trying to find a way to let themselves off the hook. After all, they could conceivably make the assertion that no "other government" else is helping the homeless; so why should they?

It’s that type of twisted logic which is partially responsible for the lack of adequate resources being made available to assist the homeless. Consequently, the numbers of homeless are increasing faster than those who are being helped back into permanent housing.

But, what rankles me the most is Merced Mayor Pro Tem John Carlisle’s "plan" and the stipulation that local non-profit organizations be required "… to lend a hand in caring for the homeless people."

Perhaps Mayor Pro Tem Carlisle needs to make a closer examination of what is happening in his city.

The Merced County Rescue Mission has trying to provide services to the homeless since 1991.

In addition, the Merced County Community Action Agency has been engaged in trying to help the homeless since 1987.

Basically, "non-profit groups" have been striving to address homelessness in their community. Which begs the question: When is the City of Merced finally going to get on board and do its part?

The article quotes the Mayor Pro Tem as having said,

"If we don’t take the lead we’ll go around in circles and accomplish nothing."

I’m making a guess – but I’m willing to bet that when the Mayor Pro Tem used the word "we" he was referring to the Merced City Council.

There were a number of thoughts that went through my mind when I read Mayor Pro Tem Carlisle’s statement.

First, based on what I’ve been able to research – when it comes to addressing homeless – the Merced City Council has already been highly successful at accomplishing nothing.

Second is that they don’t need to worry that they’ll be going in circles. They’re already doing that.

And finally, with regards to helping the homeless, if the Merced City Council does indeed "take the lead," it will be the "blind leading the blind" and falling into a ditch.

For assigning the reduction of graffiti a higher priority than helping and reducing the numbers of homeless in their community, the Merced City Council has earned themselves the SLO Homeless Stuck On Stupid Award.

  1. Margaret says:

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.


  2. John Carlisle says:


    I have to say that your summation of the homeless issue and the City Council is pretty much right on – with at least one important exception! That exception is your apparently taking exception to involving the faith based groups in the project.

    The reality is that those groups have been the only ones making ongoing efforts with the homeless for the past several years. And they had already agreed to “adopt” an apartment each, if the City agreed with my temporary plan. I certainly was not trying to get them involved in anything they did not wish to be involved in. I do not see the faith based groups as having any obligation to do anything about the homeless. It is something that THEY have chosen to do out of concern for their fellow man (or woman). And they have carried a great burden for years, while government has done very little.

    The City of Merced and the County of Merced have contributed a little money along the way, but have largely chosen to officially ignore the problem. That is what I am attempting to change. Rather than occasionally dealing with an “emergency” issue (like the D St. Shelter not opening until several months after their stated opening day), I want to find something that will be more sustainable. My proposal was simply a small effort to try to demonstrate to other politicians that we could partner with faith based groups to do something constructive to deal with the issue. If that worked, we could go for a larger and more sustainable project that would actually address the issue.

    You are totally correct that City have been trying to get themselves “off the hook”, so to speak. And what I have been trying to do is just the opposite. Which isn’t exactly easy when you are one vote out of seven. Believe it or not, I believe we are actually possibly on the way to doing something. And I have been very frustrated with the endless meetings and continual excuses for not taking action that has been going on for the past 5 or 6 YEARS!

    I would be glad to talk to you about this issue if you are interested – even though you are apparently not a Merced resident. It really is difficult to know exactly what is going on when you rely on newspaper accounts of an issue.

    John Carlisle

    • michael says:

      Mr. Carlisle,

      First, Thank you for your comment.

      I don’t recall ever having had a city official having left a comment to any of my posts. So, I am humbled by your having taken the time to have done so.

      I did want to address the first paragraph of your comment…

      I do not take exception to your wanting to have Merced’s local faith-based groups involved with your proposed project.

      Indeed, toward the middle of my post I noted (just as you did at the beginning of your second paragraph) that those groups were the ones who have been putting forth the effort to help your local area homeless, while the local government has pretty much sat on it’s collective hands.

      If I do take exception to anything it would be the arrogance of the Merced City Council thinking that they are entitled to “take the lead” in anything pertaining to helping Merced’s homeless – especially considering that they have, as you pointed out, chosen do nothing all of this time. Simply because they are government officials, it does not automatically qualify them as knowing how to best address homelessness in your area.

      Best Regards,
      – m –

What's your opinion?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.