I think that the easiest way to combat fear is to bring all parties together early and look for solutions.

Please see the answer to Question #6 for this response.

The Lettered Streets has no less than ten outreach/treatment programs or housing opportunities for people facing these challenges. The most important effort a neighborhood or decision maker can put forth is to ensure that a location chosen for a particular project fits in. Where we already have development codes regarding commercial land, industrial land, and so on, that help to ensure unlike land uses transition well and exist as good neighbors we must be cognizant of land uses or building uses that may reveal conflicts and mitigate those through locational decisions that respond to the neighborhood.

This issue is outside the purview or responsibility of Port Commissioners

I experienced this directly when I worked with people with developmental disabilities in our community. It could be very difficult to find housing options for some individuals, and many times I held neighborhood meetings with the residents to discuss their concerns. Often, I used these meetings as a learning opportunity and educated the uninformed about the support systems that we had in place and the benefits of the program. I value public opinion and participation, and as a Council member, I would use this opportunity to involve the public in the project.

We have such housing in my neighborhood and I recently spent time at our neighborhood picnic visiting with the residents of City Gate. These are people in transition from jail to being productive members of society. They have a lot to offer. We need to make room for more such transitional housing in our neighborhoods while ensuring that neighborhood safety is met and that housing values aren't harmed. A significant part of this is education as to exactly what the facility is so that the unknown and errant speculation is removed.

We can do this by establishing clear zoning rules for these types of housing. This is critical to remove the "politics" from these types of critical programs. The criteria for locating these types of housing may be such that the facilities make most sense to have within city boundaries. In that regard, County government should be prepared to work with cities on appropriate zoning rules.

Candidate did not provide a response by the deadline.

There are always going to be a small number of vocal opponents to any proposal. Generally, their opposition stems from fear of change or the unknown. If we can educate people about the needs and individual stories of the people involved, we can drastically reduce that opposition. These programs provide long-term benefits to the community and reduce costs, and it is important that we inform the neighborhoods early and work together throughout the siting process. I expect that an open and honest dialogue will result in a solution that works for everyone.

I think elected officials must be very open to receiving input on these types of concerns. The recent proposal for this kind of housing in the York neighborhood is a good example where people became aware of these needs. I don't bring any particular agenda on this issue, but I will always be outspoken when it comes to holding the agencies accountable and transparent in their decision-making process.

To date I have not interfered with any such projects when contacted by concerned area neighbors. So far the potential positive outcomes, both to the people living in such housing as well as the taxpayers bottom line, and the program's designs have been sufficient to assure me that neighbors concerns are not always based on a full understanding of the situation. The most recent such circumstance was the City Gate Apartments in downtown Bellingham used to provide housing for about 40 former inmates from the County jail as well as state prisons. As a member of the County's Mental Health Advisory Committee I was briefed on this project and supported it. When area neighbors voiced concerns I helped provide accurate information about the potential residents and program's mission.

No one can deny this is a tough situation for everyone. Existing established neighborhoods and neighbors will likely resist any proposal of this kind. We have a responsibility to keep families safe and at ease. We need to put transitional housing in areas of the community where it can be appropriately monitored and close to public transportation. It would require some creative thinking, and if confronted with this, I would do research and ask questions about how this has been handled in other places.

If we create win/win scenarios you can get stakeholder buy-in. By this I mean figure out how to benefit those affected by a housing project that may hold the threat of changing their quality of life. One example would be to add a pocket park for all to enjoy or bring them in from the very start of this proposal and ask them what conditions they want addressed before such a place would be acceptable to them. Most people over time, will turn into contributors vs. objectors if they have some influence over the outcome of the project.

no response

This issue surfaced this last year in the city York neighborhood. I met with health department and sponsoring agency staff and attended a neighborhood meeting with them to listen and to address local concerns. The plan for this unit along with others that have been in this neighborhood unnoticed for years, swung the tide and we won over most of the neighbors, but not all. I won't hesitate to go to bat for other proposals like this one. We have plenty of examples that these units have a long history of providing safe housing without negative impacts to our traditional neighborhoods.

Communities are often concerned because a program or services which want to operate in their neighborhood have not communicated prior to purchasing property or building a project. The key to a successful project is early buy-in from the neighborhood. To do this the organization needs to hold neighborhood meetings to address concerns for public safety and impact on the neighborhood. It is important as well that the city government has been brought into the loop. Appropriate liaisons with police and mental health professionals which will be providing the support to the community must also determine that it has sufficient resources to support the project. Often neighborhood fears can be addressed in this setting by talking with not just the organization spearheading the project but the actual staff who will be providing the services as well as some of the residents who will be served. Often speaking with the residents about their stories helps the neighborhood understand the people who will be living there.

People support housing and service projects generally but may resist them in their own neighborhoods, and this makes it a challenge to find a balance. While some concerns of citizens are legitimate, often there is little risk to neighbors. By honestly addressing the concerns of nearby residents about proper safeguards and by bringing neighbors into the process prior to decisions, I expect that we can recognize the benefit to everyone. Communication is critical for success, and I expect compassion will replace suspicion, particularly when it is shown that these projects have been safe and successful in similar communities. To do this, we also need to monitor and collect data on local programs, to document both effectiveness and safety.

Touching back on my answer to the first question, good employment is a critical part of a longer term solution. In this case, this means that we can work to affect funding guidelines at higher levels, perhaps by redirecting some resources now spent of incarceration instead to programs, particularly job programs, that smooth transitions in to the community and reduce recidivism.

Most people's response to these sorts of things stems from fear that is based in ignorance. I would point out that all communities have people with mental illness and people who break the law. It is a fact of life. They have to be accepted and helped not pushed into another neighborhood which only exacerbates the problem. The capacity and willingness of a community to tolerate and help people in need and people with differences says much about the quality of that community. I would help to provide information that accurately represents the actual threat posed which might very well be minimal and then seek to ensure that any such facility is built in the safest most attractive way feasible, that is responsive to a neighborhood's legitimate concerns.

I would not ignore neighborhood associations' plans but in cooperation with them a strategy needs to be developed whereby these vulnerable people attempting to re-establish themselves in society have an opportunity to enjoy a stable home. Currently there is a pilot program in Whatcom County assisting fragile members of our community to obtain a stable and safe living environment. This program originated in Seattle and has proven successful. If an individual has a safe home in which to live other societal problems are reduced. This will take time and effort to educate the general population as to why this program should be adopted and funded.