I’d like to have a frank conversation about homelessness in Kern County. We have a problem — and today, it begins with how the city and county have chosen to manage the issue of homelessness and completely disregard the countless homeless individuals who have no place to go other than a vacant field. Let me start from the beginning…

Tonight, as I worked from my home and caught up on the latest local news, I stumbled upon a barely-noticeable story put out by KGET on their Facebook page. I didn’t see it on their 5 o’clock newscast, though I could have missed it. Their Facebook post linked to the story on their website (read here) outlining the fact that the Bakersfield City Planning Department and City Attorney’s office, in their infinite wisdom, have chosen to essentially evict an estimated 50 people from a vacant parcel of land in a desolate location off of South Union Avenue. They claim their reasons have to do with the unsanitary conditions in the area. The owner of the land seemed either unaware or unconcerned over the use of their land. The city, however, took issue with the conditions and, I assume, took this opportunity to levy fines and bill for impending clean up costs that they deem necessary.

Now that you know the issue, I’d like to address and assign the complete failures of many on this issue. 

First of all, to our local media. Where are you? The job of our press is to shed light on issues we should know and care about. I know, in this day it’s all about page clicks and what will garner the most viewers to boost your ad sales. Who wants to be bothered with educating the public about the massive homelessness crisis we have in Bakersfield and Kern County? I can’t fault KGET — they at least made a small post about the city’s arbitrary decision to uproot 50 people — an entire community of homeless people. But where are the rest of you? KGET? KERO? And most importantly, where is our local newspaper on the subject? I saw nothing in today’s paper on this subject, nor do I see any mention on your social media channels or website. Sure KERO, you’ll get more comments from the public on stories about Star Wars movies being available for purchase. And yea, you even caught my interest with your salacious non-news post over the allegations that a local police officer “may” have parked illegally over a handicapped parking space. And KBAK, you found it more important to report on an artist taking old paintings and adding Star Wars characters to them — a story reported by Buzzfeed years ago, by the way. And even our illustrious newspaper found it somehow more valuable to feed us stories about a dilapidated home for sale in the northwest and about a dinosaur’s classification being changed. But really, none of these news outlets thought it was important to make the community know what was about to happen to 50 homeless people? I don’t care if it seems like something folks won’t care about, or that it won’t get you the page views you’re after — this is what you should be making the news. If the community doesn’t care, you should make them care through creative reporting and building a narrative that educates our citizens. It’s utterly shameful that only one local news source made this visible at all. I would suggest fixing this and taking your duty as journalists more seriously — and if not, go work for Buzzfeed to entertain the masses and sell advertising. 

Moving forward to the real trouble with this story: our city employees who have spearheaded this eviction.

So, in considering how I’d temper my outrage and frame my thoughts on this, I took some time to review the city’s website. Specifically, I turned to the Community Development department. Bakersfield has a very robust operation that is supposedly dedicated to providing “professional and technical services that support the development of a balanced community.” And, I’m sure for the most part, our hardworking city employees do a great job. But in this instance, our city has failed in its mandate to serve all citizens — and make no mistake, these homeless folks are citizens. During my review of the Community Development website, I made a quick estimate on the number of folks it employs by reviewing the staff listed for the Building Division (this is the only one that doesn’t actually list any staff), Code Enforcement, Economic Development, and Planning Division. Just based on those listed, I’m sure Bakersfield taxpayers are employing no less than 65 people — definitely more than the 50 folks our city is planning to displace. So while our citizens are working hard to support and finance the lives of these staff members, they are actively failing 50 people who have no voice in the government, no citizens speaking up for them, and no local media shining a light on their plight. 

All of these lead me to ask myself a simple question: “Why?” Why is it necessary to remove these people from an unused piece of land, in an area of the city that is disheveled to say the least, and owned by a person who clearly didn’t care that they were using it to live on? Are we really so concerned over the look of this area that we’re willing to forcibly remove these people and make them scatter? And more importantly, what is their forced removal really going to accomplish? Tell me, Phil Burns of the Bakersfield City Planning Department, where are these 50 people going to go next? Where in the city can 50 people, with their possessions, with their pet companions, who have no home or means, go? And more importantly, why should they have to go? Can someone please enlighten me on this because I’m genuinely baffled by the city’s choice to take this action.

Once that obvious question came to me, another followed: “How much has city city spent on this?” I don’t mean to ask how much the city will spend to clean up the parcel — as that is being passed along to the owner. I mean, how much time, man power, and city agencies has this ‘very necessary’ action cost the taxpayers thus far? Clearly, we’re using city resources within the Community Development and the City Attorney’s office to put an end to the use of vacant land by people with no where else to go. So can someone please give us an estimate on the number of staff members who have had to work on this initiative to date and how much of their time was expended to rid these people of their makeshift homes in a barely trafficked area of the city? And carrying that one step further, wouldn’t it have been a far more prudent use of those city resources to do any of the following:

1. Come up with a proactive plan that focuses on helping these and other homeless folks in Bakersfield.
2. Work with other local resources to do what the city clearly cannot — like help these homeless. We have two shelters specifically geared to do this with very little support.
3. Eliminate the obviously oversized and inefficient divisions within the Community Development Department. Really, how many administrative positions are required here? Perhaps a fraction of those recouped funds could be put to use in actually solving the problem of homelessness rather than merely relocating it.

And, to show that I’m not unmoved by the alleged concern over issues of sanitation, let me just say that I acknowledge the fact that 50 people living in a field is bound to make a huge mess. The human waste alone must be immense. I also assume the amount of refuse is quite great. So, if this is really the primary concern and chief reason you all took it upon yourselves to evict 50 people, why not instead give them access to the very basic resources needed? I have to believe the city can come up with enough money out of a discretionary fund to drop a dumpster and a port-a-potty on this piece of land and provide weekly servicing of them. And if we can’t sum up the menial funds that would require, surely someone in our city’s vast Economic Development department could reach out to local businesses and utilities to see about participating in a community effort to fund this worthwhile cause — so that 50 people can have access to basic human requirements. Because, as I’ve asked already, what is the alternative? Is it really benefitting anyone that these 50 people scatter and create 50 smaller, spread out issues with sanitation and refuse? I’d think it’s far easier to manage sanitation and refuse issues if they are contained to one large place, wouldn’t you all?

What you all have to realize is that the homeless aren’t suddenly going to find a home simply because you evict them from this land. They also aren’t going to find a place in our undersized and underfunded homeless shelters. Bakersfield has only two homeless shelters. It has other housing options for women and children, for veterans, for folks with developmental disabilities or mental illness and other subsets of the homeless population. But when it comes to folks who are simply homeless due to their inability to find work, due to substance abuse, or just because they choose to be homeless (and it happens), resources are not just underwhelming — their are egregiously out of balance for the size of the city and county when compared to other metropolitan areas. Simply put, the city’s efforts are inadequate. The public’s efforts are inadequate, too. I’m not trying to place blame, but I am pointing out that our needs far exceed the resources required to combat and/or assist the homeless who live in Kern County. I am, however, trying to underscore the fact that forcing these folks off the land will do nothing to solve the issue. Perhaps with a coordinated effort, we can find a proactive solution to the aforementioned issues these 50 homeless present at their current location and source ways to remedy their waste footprint.

Lastly, I’d like to address the other folks who have failed the local homeless: our local elected officials... Namely, the city council and county supervisors. 

I’ll ask you all the same question I ask of the local media: where are you? I know, these 50 homeless folks likely don’t vote and probably aren’t even your constituents. This piece of land falls in one ward and one district, after all. So you may be asking yourselves why you should care or take time out of your day to deal with this problem. Let me explain it for you in a few steps…

1. Homelessness is an issue throughout Bakersfield and Kern County. No, we may not have too many homeless in our upscale neighborhoods of the southwest. And the the new areas in the northwest are also rarely ‘home’ to the homeless of our city. The fact that the area of the city or county you’re responsible for has few homeless doesn’t mean that you’re succeeding on the issue or that you don’t need to participate in an effort to help this disenfranchised segment of our population. Your responsibility to the city and county doesn’t begin and end at the borders of your ward or district. If one area is facing hardship with homelessness issues, the other areas should be sourcing solutions and offering assistance. You should be reaching out to constituents with the means and resources to help rectify the problems of a neighboring area. If you don’t want to do this for common and neighborly decency, then do it for self preservation. Where do you all think these homeless are going to go once they are evicted? It’s very possible they could find themselves in your ward or district causing the same issues. And what would you have the city agencies do when your constituents complain about the very same issue? You’ll likely reach out, again, to city agencies to forcibly remove them from their new-found homes and become yet another area’s problem. That isn’t a solution. 
2. Responsibility. Ultimately, it’s you elected officials who will bear the brunt of the public outrage over this. City employees are unionized and all but impossible to remove from their positions. But you all are elected to office. This inhumane and (more importantly) non-solution to the issue of homelessness in Bakersfield and Kern County is within your purview to address and rectify. The fact that none of you have voiced an opinion, good, bad, or otherwise, on the subject of 50 people being forcibly removed from a vacant piece of land says that either you don’t care, you are barely competent, or you are completely oblivious to what is going on in your own city/county. I know for most of you this is a part time job and you have active lives and careers that pull your primary focus, but if our city can forcibly remove 50 people from their tent-homes without you taking notice, I’d respectfully ask that you check your priorities and dedication to your office. 
3. Priorities. This is specifically directed to the Bakersfield City Council, and to be fair, it’s directed to those who were on the council during the last term. You see, I’m still not completely over the fact that you all spent time, city funds, and resources debating about a proposed city ordinance to ban abortion. I’m not going to get into the merits of that issue, but I am going to get to the heart of it. You were all eager and willing to entertain an ordinance that would have opened up the city to massive litigation as it was a violation of state and federal law. Our own city attorney told you on multiple occasions that this would result in several hundred thousand dollars worth of expense just in manpower to enforce and respond to the flood of lawsuits this ordinance would cause — not to mention the millions in damages our city could have been forced to pay out. And this “grand gesture” was for what? So you could look good to the religious base who would be reelecting you to your council seats. Specifically, I’m talking to you Jacquie Sullivan. And it doesn’t end there. A few years earlier, you all took it upon yourselves to waste council time to plaster “In God We Trust” above the doorway to our council chambers, also likely to help bolster your reelections. These empty gestures are nothing but self-serving acts and a waste of the limited time you actually serve our city. They cost us money. They open our city up to litigation. And most importantly, they divert your attention away from real issues facing our city. It’s utterly shameful.
   
   But here we are with an issue that is real and requires actual intervention or even participation on your part — and you’re all silent as church mice, no pun intended. We’ll get you all to risk millions in city funds for hypothetical children and ensure your reelection, but you’re too busy to address the needs of real people in our city? Where is your concern for these human lives? Do you think that you could, perhaps, work on amending a city ordinance that allows these people the ability to simply have a place to sleep? What if we said we were ok with flying a banner over it that stated, “In God We Trust” — would that make it easier or more popular for discussion? I’m reasonably sure these 50 homeless people wouldn’t care what phrase they had to walk under on the way to their modest tents as long as they would have a place they could sleep. I guess a faux attempt to stop abortion in Bakersfield or unnecessary advertisement of your religious affiliation gets more votes than helping 50 homeless people remain homeless and stay as an intact community. 

Please don’t let my above statements be taken as me demeaning your sincerely held beliefs or as admonishment of a cause you personally feel is important. My point is that while you have time for these unimportant issues and inappropriate uses of city resources at the behest of your personal beliefs, none of you have found time to get involved with this very real, very immediate issue. And that is where I take issue with every member of the city council. This is your job.

In closing…

I would hope that you’ve all taken the time to read through this unexpectedly long open letter to our city and county officials. What we have now is an impending deadline that should be addressed by our city agencies, that our elected officials should get involved with, and that our local media should thoroughly investigate and closely follow. These homeless are slated to be evicted this week — and where they will goes anyone’s guess. Please take the time to treat this with diligence it is due. Everyone, even the homeless, deserve our consideration and assistance. We have the ability and resources to make this right, it will just take all of you participating to find an equitable solution.