Why the City Keeps Getting it Wrong at the Albany Bulb

It’s been six months since the October eviction date at the Albany Bulb. Most long-time residents are still in their shelters on the Bulb. Only a handful have gotten into housing. The City has been spending its money staffing and outfitting a nearly empty shelter near the Bulb, a place where shelter staff have repeatedly turned away Bulb residents. There is currently no agreement between Bulb residents, advocates, and the City—any efforts to remove people in the imminent future will involve force.

It didn’t have to be this way. In October, the City Council had a proposal before it under which Bulb residents would leave voluntarily by April, which is now upon us. City money would have been spent on housing subsidies so that residents would have a place to go.  The City could have collaborated with the County  to receive matching funds, and maximized the number of people who left the Bulb for housing, rather than being forced into Albany streets and sidewalks. The lawsuit brought by Bulb residents would have ended. We could have saved money on attorneys’ fees and a shelter that is nearly useless because it is inaccessible to people with disabilities. This could all be nearly over.

The City Council rejected this plan. In doing so, the Council ignored information they got from experts:  From disability experts; from long-time homeless service providers; from a renowned Harvard-educated doctor experienced in working with chronically homeless patients; and from homeless policy experts with federal, County, and local expertise. They ignored the recommendations of the taskforce of Albany residents whom the Council appointed to come up with solutions about the Bulb.

Finally, the City ignored the Bulb residents themselves, several of whom spoke powerfully about their disabilities, the years they have been on the Bulb, and their desire to get housing.

All of these people said the City’s plan would not work, that it would be wasting money and passing up the opportunity to leverage more County and other resources. The City Council ignored them.

The question is, why? The City is about to head into another round of settlement negotiations about the Bulb, and it’s useful to know how they can make a plan that avoids the pitfalls of the last six months.

First, the City can use our money where it will do good. We should close down the inhospitable shelter, which sits essentially empty. The City should sell the trailers and put that money into housing subsidies, as well as the amount saved by not having to pay staff to sit in a largely empty building and turn people away.

Second, the City should adopt a realistic timetable.  It is possible to move a large community of long-time, chronically homeless, severely disabled people into places where they can be secure and housed. It’s been done in other places, and it is more cost effective than pushing people onto Albany’s streets. A realistic timetable is not immediate eviction, which is what the City is threatening. It needs to be—and can be, with better use of City funds—based on provision of effective assistance to the people seeking to relocate. A pragmatic schedule could allow for realistic planning and benefit everyone.

Third, in the meantime, the City should make initial Bulb improvements. There are simple, cheap measures the City can take to reduce potential harm to the people living at the Bulb, to the environment, and to the public that wants to use the Bulb. This includes providing port-a-potties for all park users, and opening up access to potable water. Despite the perceptions of some, this is not a situation where walking enthusiasts must be pitted against homeless residents. The needs of both groups can be met in one well-crafted agreement.

This week, the City of Albany has a chance to reconsider its failed Bulb policy. They should take it.

boona cheema was the director of Building Opportunities for Self Sufficiency, Alameda County’s largest shelter and homeless services provider,  for 38 years until her retirement last year.