I guarantee if you remove the “stocky bald bum” the situation in this area will improve 1000%

If our laws were enforced maybe 1000%, but plenty of other bums to trash our city as we are lenient on our laws. Word gets out on the bum hotline that we are lenient and welcome them from other cities is the basis of this problem

It appears clear the city is not concerned over this matter. Yet tax dollars still pour into Vallejo for what ? This same bum is a major problem to the mess when if ever will the City do something about him..

Thank you for reporting! Senior Code Enforcement Officer Yoo has an active case on the property, case reference #CE18-2777. You may visit our online tracking system, eTRAKiT, to view updates on current cases at http://web.ci.vallejo.ca.us/eTRAKiT3/ (please allow several business days for information to upload). SeeClickFix is one of the many tools available to the citizens of Vallejo to report non-emergency issues. We “close” an issue in SeeClickFix once we've acknowledged the complaint; however, this issue is not "Closed" per se; it will remain an "Open" case with us until it is corrected. If there is anything else we can assist you with, please let us know. Thank you for using SeeClickFix!

I think it should stay open here until it is resolved. How could you say thanks when it isn't resolved. this is not a new request, a repeat one because it wasn't completed from the last request. Sorry, I wish it was resolved and I could believe in this system and not be such a complainer.

1) Obviously, if you ever visit neighboring communities or follow the news at all, you will must know that homelessness is not a Vallejo specific issue, but regional. In fact, walk in many neighborhoods in Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland, and of course San Francisco and you will see that Vallejo's problem is actually less acute than most neighboring communities.

2) I worked for the San Francisco Homeless Outreach Team for several years recently, and can tell you that trying to arrest or 'move people on' just doesn't work. The people you call 'bums' (people who are experiencing homelessness for a variety of reasons ranging from acute mental health challenges to substance abuse to the high cost of housing in California at large) are first and foremost people with rights. So yes, if they are legitimately breaking local ordinances such as vagrancy, open container, or possession laws they can be arrested; but how long do you think they will spend in jail for these misdemeanors? And then where do they go when they get out? Just so you know, it is illegal for a city to ship people to other locations because of these kind of violations, and also illegal for police to profile people and harass them because they 'look like bums.'

So what exactly do you want Vallejo officials to do? Be specific and think through the unintended consequences (potential lawsuits, homeless people moving from your neighborhood to other neighborhoods, increased division between many community members and the police, etc)

3) There are solutions to this problem, but none that don't involve more serious support for people with mental health and substance abuse issues, more truly affordable housing, and in general a whole lot of money. What you see on the streets now is a product of decades of advocacy for low taxes and hollowed out government services. I guarantee that without serious investment in the services listed above (from the Feds, State, and local governments), this problem isn't going away -- so advocate for these things and accept that it will cost, or live with it.

The cities like San Francisco are helping people that never had housing in San Francisco. I don't think a city should be nice to people whom break laws like illegal dumping, expired registrations, No Vehicle insurance,illegal camping, intoxication etc.. I only sympathize with ones whom have fallen on hard times who want to do better not ones whom live contently around filth and trash and are homeless hoarders and create blight through out towns. Trash falls out of their vehicles every time they are near their vehicles. I am a workaholic and have a hard time with lazy trashy people. There needs to be a managed camp for the bums and a way to help them learn to not blight every where if they want to live amongst us. They need to be held responsible for their actions. The services need to reflect their situation. There needs to be services for all the different levels of needs. I think the city where they last had a home should be the one to be held responsible for them. I have plenty of compassion, but little tolerance for complacent dysfunction and blight

1) Over 75% of homeless people in San Francisco had housing in SF before they hit the streets. Look it up -- while some folks struggling with various issues do come to the Bay Area, homeless people also regularly leave the area because there is literally no chance at this point that they will be housed in the foreseeable future. It's largely an urban myth that people come from all over the country to be homeless in SF.

2) So "managed camps for the bums?" If you're talking about homeless shelters with access to services to help people get back on their feet, great, that's a good start to dealing with the issue and we don't have nearly enough shelter beds in Vallejo or anywhere else in the Bay Area -- but this isn't cheap. But if you're talking about confining people in some kind of homeless concentration camp -- we have something called the constitution, so no matter your personal feelings about "trashy homeless people", that's just not going to happen. You can, as I said, put people in jail for very short amounts of time if they are actually breaking a law of some kind -- but cops hate wasting their time on this because they know that the kinds of misdemeanors or minor felonies these people may be guilty of will only keep them there for a few days at most. If you want to increase the sentencing for loitering or public intoxication or other stuff people might be arrested for substantially, you would quickly run into constitutional issues, so?

And if you want cops to arrest, move on, or otherwise interact with the people on the streets, then be ready for the reality of them over an hour to respond to you when your house is broken into. I'm guessing you hate taxes and don't want them raised, but without doing that what do you expect the officials of Vallejo to actually do about this?

Not liking something and wanting things to be different is so much easier than actually solving a huge, complicated, expensive problem -- no matter what most self serving politicians will say when trying to get elected. Unfortunately the message is out that complicated truths don't get you elected -- mindless and pandering slogans do.

I don’t have any problem with taxes being raised in order to solve these problems, but only if that money goes directly into solving homelessness.
But I do believe these folks need to be held accountable for their actions when they create blight, dump, litter, do drugs leaving needles in public spaces and commit indecent exposure, trespass and plague our streets with dangerous unregistered/insured junk vehicles.
Most truly down on luck homeless want help and want jobs/housing, etc. they try not to be seen, they don’t make a mess and impose on they way of life for everyone else.

NWR, get over the drama and accusations. You said concentration camps. I am talking about some type of camps for law breakers to help guide and rehabilitate them and see how we can improve the situation for all concerned. Not jails for non violent crimes. Oakland has types of camps, but trash is overflowing from them which means they need improving and more structure. The 75% of San Francisco's homeless are in many stages of homeless. I have no tolerance for the ones whom are content to live around their own trash and blight where ever they go. These are the ones whom should be sent to a camp for a better situation than the streets where they can't manage and be responsible and sober etc.. These are not the ones whom are just on financial bad times and are trying hard to do better, I sympathize with them. The 25% from other towns where they lived I don't agree with it being San Francisco's problem to resolve as more will come to take their place and get in an perpetual line for services when each batch of them get services. I was pushed out of San Francisco myself because I could have a better financial etc. life elsewhere. Cops are mostly useless for me already from past experiences which are because of homeless bums, not homeless people. I hear more from you more excuses instead of solutions which sometimes might sound extreme, but the problem is extreme. Mentally ill etc. people whom have proven they can't manage their lives independently need to be designated to the appropriate place and service to make it better for all.

Temporary shelters could be put in the abandoned post office or the abandoned high school. (asbestos?)Unfortunately when I spoke with Christina at CSS, she informed me that the Fairfield Shelter is now closed due to loss of funding. And the planned shelter for Vallejo it’s a long ways off, considering they still need to demolish a building and get a whole lot more money than the 2 million(?) they have to build the new shelter. Closing the Fairfield shelter at the onset of winter, not so brilliant!

It occurred to me that both the post office and high school are probably filled with Asbestos and of course we can’t expose homeless people to that, just the elements and freezing to death.

So what are any of us prepared to do?
*Pay more taxes to fund the needed programs?
*Volunteer your time to a shelter or food bank or other outreach program?
*Petition City Hall and State Government to redirect funds to the problem?

Most of the comments I have seen do not want to do anything but complain. They feel taxes are already too much, don't want to help, just remove the problem from sight (out of sight out of mind...), or even participate in a neighborhood coalition.

Any thought or ideas?

I want our laws enforced to the fullest for starters including the 100's vehicle expired registration etc. vehicles. Asbestos is more of an excuse and also probably scared of lawsuits because of such. Asbestos is a very little treat if you don't disturb it. Have the homeless sign a waiver. I pick up after them daily. maybe if they didn't trash where ever they go we would want to do more for them. We should get them to take personal responsibility. I work full time plus as I am self employed and rarely take a day off. I would have a hard time accepting volunteering for people whom don't work and create blight and are complacent with such on my once a month day off. The stocky bald guy is back "camping" at this location that they closed the matter on. Maybe we wouldn't be complaining so much if the problem were fixed instead of just pushing it around town.

To get our laws enforced to the fullest we would have to have a full staff of police, and Vallejo has 1/3 of what is needed or what we had in the past.

We could start with vehicle enforcement which could be contracted to an outside company as there is money to be made. If our laws were enforced better there wouldn't be as many repeat offenders and calls to the police. There is too much bureaucracy the police have too deal with to be more efficient. The police have come out on a call and don't enforce the laws and then leave. They wait 5 months for expired registrations in which the problem doesn't get resolved and the offender will go around town possibly creating more calls.

Watching Out, no disrespect intended -- we actually agree on a few things and I'm not saying you shouldn't be upset about the hole situation by any means. I'm also not trying to be dramatic, but many of the ideas you have articulated about what should be done to deal with this issue, and your judgements about some homeless people, don't add up to any kind of solution that is legal or realistic, given all the complicated factors involved. For example, I agree that people whose mental health challenges are so severe that they clearly can not take care of themselves should be required to live in a facility that provides a decent standard of living and mental health care. But the way the laws are currently written make it really difficult to commit someone involuntarily. That plus the fact that there was never an investment made in building even close to the number of mental health facilities for the number of people out there with serious issues, means these people are often left to their own devices and end up on the streets.

And yes, often people with mental health challenges will eventually turn to drugs -- so to someone looking at their camps they may appear to be irresponsible 'druggies', but really what's going is likely a history of mental health challenges that may now be combined with substance abuse issues which have led to a total breakdown in their desire or ability to care for themselves.

Like you, I also work long hours in a hard job (now in the trades, so physical work), but know that the road to hireability and housing for many of the people we're talking about is monumental, if even possible. Seriously, If you had a business or were the HR person for a city or big business, would you hire the guy you're talking about at the bus stop in the state he's in now? And even if you think it's some kind of bad character flaw that got him there and disregard his personal history or possible mental health challenges, isn't that just a reality of the human condition? So I'm asking, what to do?

Oakland doesn't force people into camps for the homeless BTW -- I know, because I know people who work in the system over there. Seattle does have a self-organized camp that was (as of a couple of years ago) working pretty well, and maybe that's more the kind of thing you're talking about. But it was organized initially by homeless people on a vacant piece of land sort of on the outskirts of town, and was only later officially sanctioned by the city. And it's not mandatory, but a better alternative for many that setting up random encampments around town, and the city does now provide some services there. That could be a really good start for Vallejo, and I'm all for something like that if that's the kind of thing you're talking about. What I don't like, and is clearly not legal, is to force people into these camps, so this won't be a full solution either (people suffering from any kind of paranoia or who feel they may be victimized won't use them for starters).

To be clear, I'm not associated at all with the Vallejo City government, and am not a huge supporter of anyone there, but I do know the legal, financial, and social constraints on any city government. Even if they were the most diligent and honest politicians and bureaucrats in history, the real solutions would be almost impossible to implement given the $ and system we have -- and I'm saying that with some knowledge because I've worked in that system in the recent past.

That said, I have noticed that Vallejo has an almost non-existent program to deal with the homeless problem here, and could definitely do better I think.

Also, I agree with Artsem that ultimately it comes down to what are we willing to do. I totally understand that because you work so hard you don't have the time or energy to volunteer, and it's hard to feel like your efforts would make much of a difference. I often feel the same way. But blaming other people (city officials, cops, or the homeless people you're speaking about) won't get us anywhere. So you have a good idea about having the city create an official homeless camp or two and encouraging people on the street to use them, at least temporarily as a kind of quick pop-up until a more complete solution can be put into place. What about presenting that idea to the city council? Maybe you've tried that, I don't know -- I also moved here just 2-years ago because I was priced out of SF after 32-years, so am pretty new to Vallejo and don't yet have a grip on the political scene.

Anyway, not trying to be rude or mean -- and am as frustrated as you -- just trying to give a little insight from my years of working on and following this issue.

These junk vehicles could be towed immediately, then:
•Offender has to pay fines and towing fees to get the vehicle back, this generating income for the city or agency contracted to tow.
•Unclaimed towed vehicles can then be likened and auctioned off for profit generating revenue.
If not sold, sold to Auto salvage yard or scrapped, therefore also creating revenue for the city.
•The only thing that will not likely raise rent is the disposal of RVs/Campers as it is cost prohibitive to junk/scrap these, however we urgently need to rid our city of them.
Solution? Yes, the profit from the sold/junked/scrapped cars/trucks can offset the losses of disposing of the RVs/Campers.
*There should be a way for the city to tow unauthorized vehicles on private property if they are trespassing*
And wait, it gets even better: Any profit the city makes off this new aggressive parking enforcement first goes straight to cleaning up dumping and litter followed by funding homeless programs and hopefully new shelters.
After all they ought to be in shelters/programs, not squatting in tents and RVs alll over town creating blight.

We surely need to be creative and not complacent with excuses on how it is going. That has been going on long enough. There are answers, but we need to get the ones whom think the non tax paying lawbreakers should have more rights than the tax paying law followers out of the way instead of babying/enabling the violators thus keeping the dysfunction as it is. There should also be Federal dollars to help and a way to get the violators to also be responsible for their own costs by having them pick up trash, weed, clean etc.. Perpetual Blight offenders should be kept in a low security camp if they can't follow Health and safety etc. rules on the outside. We should also send the homeless that aren't homeless from Vallejo out of town if they can't be part of the solution. You feed a cat and more will come.

Would you want another city shipping their unwanted homeless to Vallejo? It would be like a foreign exchange program for the disenfranchised. You can't just corral them up and confine them. Please don't get me wrong, I wish to walk to the Ferry Building some morning and not see the "personal Belongings" stashed in and killing the landscaping. Or that when you call or file a report to Traffic Division that they will respond. Or even the City Manager's Office might read and return any type of response when you email or leave a voicemail.
In the meantime...............

Would you want another city to send Vallejo their homeless? If the answer is no, then why do you think it would work the other way around? You can not just corral them up either.....

If they were homeless from Vallejo as their long time residence Maybe, but we need a functional system with real solutions and possibly federal assistance. Not let them be irresponsible and create blight etc. through out our town. If they break laws continually they should be gathered up and brought to somewhere to be assisted with and evaluated to what the next step should be. I don't believe in jailing non violent people whom break laws, but I do believe in personal responsibility.

And how long should you live here to qualify as a homeless "Vallejo Resident". How long have you lived here?
Me? I've only been around 6 years.....
Don't get me wrong. I would live to get a response from Traffic & Parking Division, Police non-emergency, City Managers Office, etc.after contacting them. I would also like to see the town cleaned up, managed right and be financially solvent. I would urge you to make a visit to CSS/Code Enforcement and get some real answers from Christina or Officer Gomez, they are very receptive to questions. They are instructed to stick to the "canned" responses on SCF, and therefore cannot personalize responses. Maybe they can explain that "gathering them up" is really not legal. Each must be treated as an individual. I believe that there are 2 types of homeless, the truly needy and the apathetic lazy panhandler. Each need to be handled different.

I think how long and the details should be based on where their home was the longest. I feel their are more than two types of homeless and should be addressed as such. The trashy bums whom are creating blight breaking laws and maybe mentally ill for a number of reasons are the ones whom need to be somewhere as they aren't fit to make it on their own with out violating the rights of us to be free from blight etc.. The truly needy need us to help them get back to independence and each one should be evaluated to what level of assistance is appropriate for them. No homeless whom create blight etc. whom can't be sober needs to be kept in rehab away from what is enabling them. This all needs to be done with tough love sometimes, not the current way since they have proven to not be in control of their own actions which is bad for us and them. Camps should be more like a place for reform and done with dignity as much as possible. The bums shouldn't be the same place as the ones whom are trying harder whom have fallen on hard times.

Watching Out: So if they lived in Florida 20 years and moved to Vallejo and lived here less than that, you want to ship them out? Would you pay for their bus ticket too? Dictating where people can live and go is pretty much un-American. Thank Ronald Ray-gun & proposition 13 for turning out the mentally impaired to the streets. Never recovered from those years.
Anyway, that my last comment on this post. Thanks for putting forth your thoughts.

Arrrg, nothing to censor, it will come out eventually.....

Proposition 13 has kept many responsible homeowners from losing their homes and being homeless. If we are responsible for homeless from other towns we need federal dollars for them. Yes, it got worse with Reagan

Issue 5128630 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Code Enforcement Division assigned this issue to Christina E., Community Services Section (CSS)

Thank you for reporting! The Police Department's Community Service Section (CSS) has opened a case for this issue. CSS has one part-time and three full-time employees who are responsible for addressing all quality of life concerns, supporting Neighborhood Watch groups, and working with the Neighborhood Law Program and Code Enforcement to address distressed and dangerous properties. We work hard to investigate each report in a timely manner, and will investigate this report as soon as we possibly can. Please keep in mind there is a lengthy process to remove illegal encampments. If you have any questions, please call our office at (707) 553-7218.

If you witness any suspicious or criminal activity that requires an immediate response, please call 9-1-1.

How do we fix this "lengthy process" to deal with law breakers. I doubt Benicia or other well managed towns have a lengthy process. I have yet to see where homeless live in well managed towns. Why do we let the vagrant bums (not needy homeless trying to do better) break the laws at the expense of law abiding tax payers?

If the bushes were trimmed we wouldn't have to report homeless encampments as much.

Thank you to NWR, artsem, watching out and other thoughtful people for this discussion about homelessness in Vallejo. I have been following teh issue of homelessness in Vallejo since 2014 and the county of Solano has "supposedly" been doing something about it since 2009. The county is funded by the state to deal with this issue and the state apparently receives some Federal money. How much I do not know. I am in possession of a report about homelessness in Solano county which was published in 2009 where the reporters said that the best solution is "housing first". In all my studies of the homeless issue, all the "studiers" reported that "housing first" seemed to be the best option for solving the "homeless" problem. Give people their own apartments or homes (or tiny homes) then deal with the mental health issues, their drug addiction issues, their drinking issues their littering issues, their old traffic ticket issues etc etc. Pilot programs with housing first have proven very successful. This is an issue that the government --city county state and national is moving on like sloths. Watching out, look up the emails of our city council members and email and call them daily and put the pressure onto them .Politicians only take action on issues that their constituents make noise about. You know it is the :"squeaky wheel gets the grease theory"of politics. If you do not like their proposed solutions run for city council yourself an nd try and implement your solutions. I do not agree with your solutions, but it is a free country. I agree with artsem and NWR that homelessness is a symptom of deeper societal issues. It will be difficult for the city to solve the problem single handedly. Thanks for all your comments in the forum. the city workers who have to clean up homeless encampments knowing that that is NOT going to solve the issue have my thanks and sympathy.

I do agree with “housing first” in 90 percent of cases of homelessness.
However, before just hanging over a set of keys to someone I do think they need to be evaluated as some are not mentally stable or responsible enough to take care of their own place without destroying it.
When dealing with the homeless, they need to be triaged and each situation solved accordingly as all of them have different needs and suffer from different issues, some of which led them into homelessness to begin with.

Jw, Housing first works. If you think people with mental problems need to be placed involuntarily into "closed and supervised " living, we as citizens need to change our laws to make this ;possible. I am old enough to remember in the 1980s and prior when laws were changed so that it was very difficult to "lock up" the mentally ill, addicted, and mentally impaired." It was , of course, done with the best intentions of helping them. However it often lead to gross violations of their human rights and their dignity as human beings. I remember news stories of mentally impaired women (really young women) being raped and impregnated and then being punished for that. People being beaten and starved. It is a difficult line to walk. It might be cheaper to put up with doing repairs and cleaning to provided housing than it is to lock people up and throw away the keys. What is unacceptable to me is watching the mentally ill standing out in the rain and cold, without food or the ability to obtain it, inadequately clothed, wet freezing and ranting and then shrugging our shoulders and saying that they "choose" to live like that. I believe that persuasion works better than coercion ultimately. There are mental health professionals that are qualified to do the persuading . Far better qualified than you or I. I am not adverse to changing the laws so that people who need help and are not capable of obtaining it can be detained and helped despite themselves. But we need to change the laws and we need adequate funding and oversight to make sure we do not go back to the era of "snake pits" so Helping 90% of the homeless and then solving the problem of the 10% to me makes sense. 90% is an A grade in school. Let us resolve to implement a "better solution" right now which would help the 90% and then deal with the intractable 10%. We will all be better off. Especially the homeless children of which there are (officially) some 100 plus in Vallejo alone according to the school system the "homeless problem" is an emergency right now. And it is NOT going away unless we, the citizen s demand change NOW. I have watched it get worse and worse. It is not going to get better unless we take action NOW.

Cleaned up