New State Parks chief addresses challenges in Santa Cruz - Sant...

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: SANTA CRUZ LOCAL has admitted she conducted this "experiment" on only one occasion. And because of this, she concluded that all panhandlers are lazy and don't want to work.

ONCE was enough for me to conclude the fact that panhandlers would rather sit than work and nothing you say will change that fact for me.

Using your 'stats', I guess that day I spoke to the 50% who are too lazy.

I was downtown yesterday and hit up again, when I said that I had no spare change, I was yelled at and called a *itch. Lovely. Really made my downtown trip!

REPLY TO DBS: "One-third of homeless people are working," CAB's report notes, "and one-tenth are working full time." This is the same range of figures that shows up in Santa Clara County, where nearly 40 percent of shelter occupants are employed. Wages simply don't earn a month's rent, a month's deposit and other initial payments."
---from: Community Action Board report, entitled HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY--2007

found at: http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cru...

SANTA CRUZ LOCAL WRITES: "I was downtown yesterday and hit up again, when I said that I had no spare change, I was yelled at and called a *itch. Lovely."

BECKY: I too have been downtown many, many times. I have been approached by panhandlers that I have:
1. smiled at and said "sorry, I can't today"
2. walked past without speaking to them
3. have given spare change to
4. have offered to give them Street Spirit newspapers which they could then sell for money

On zero occasions was I called any name, sworn at, or followed. Perhaps you need to work on your attitude. BTW did you check out the REAL statistics in a REAL study I posted above? You will see that your little experiment didn't produce any reliable data.

From the news article you quoted;

"Given a total county population of around 266,000, that puts the rate of homelessness at around 2 percent. Which, given the National Alliance to End Homelessness' estimate of a national rate of 0.3 percent, is around six times greater."

But Becky, you've told us over and over and over that Santa Cruz falls into the national average when looking at the percentage of homeless in our community. I believe your words have been "We have no more then our fair share". The article you quote, and the NAEH statistics supplied, say we have SIX TIMES the national average. You've also said before, on many occasions, that the national average is 1%. Yet the article says it is 0.3%. You're quoting an article that directly contradicts your previous statements. An article which just above you say are "REAL statistics in a REAL study". That would mean that the information you have supplied us with before is either inaccurate or misleading.
Note: The numbers are for the county. You have said that our homeless population in the city of Santa Cruz is between 1500-2000, which again is 2.7% to 3.7% applying real math and not Becky's Magical Math. That would put our city at around TEN TIMES the national average according to the REAL study you quoted.

Becky Johnson wrote:

BECKY: I too have been downtown many, many times. I have been approached by panhandlers that I have:
1. smiled at and said "sorry, I can't today"
2. walked past without speaking to them
3. have given spare change to
4. have offered to give them Street Spirit newspapers which they could then sell for money
On zero occasions was I called any name, sworn at, or followed. Perhaps you need to work on your attitude.

Becky, my 'attitude' is just fine, thank you. Being called a *itch because I said I had no spare change is completely uncalled for.

Good catch Craig.

Instructions to Becky: Insert foot into mouth. Then blow.

Becky applies whatever study, statistic or article that immediately serves her purpose regardless of consistency of message.

And to think that Becky Johnson is entrusted with teaching our children critical thinking in school. It makes you wonder about the quality of education our kids receive.

Becky Johnson wrote:

BTW did you check out the REAL statistics in a REAL study I posted above? You will see that your little experiment didn't produce any reliable data.

You will also see how it proves Becky's previously produced data is unreliable.

I saw Robert Norse speak yesterday at City Council Oral Communications. A grand moment for civil rights, a powerful delivery, full of invectives.

The message was about the positive aspects of hanging out on street corners, and why the community should rise up to "take back" public space downtown, because the City Council will not.

And as soon as the attention was no longer focused on him he left. Walked outside with his brown paper shopping bag and walked away at 7:45.
He cares so much for this city that he left before hearing about one of the biggest building and housing projects to hit the west side.
It's about him or he does not want to hear about it.

Santa Cruz Local wrote:

<quoted text>
Becky, my 'attitude' is just fine, thank you. Being called a *itch because I said I had no spare change is completely uncalled for.

I'll have to agree with you. I've been called numerous things and even spit at for not having spare change. I did not give them attitude, just said, "No, sorry" and kept walking.

Hey Becky, if 40% of the homeless are working, what about the other 98% that are causing all of the problems?

REPLY TO CRAIG: I have said repeatedly that statistics about homeless populations are extremely unreliable. Folks who do studies always have their own bias involved with City leaders trying to downplay the number of homeless and shelter providers trying to maximize the number of homeless to garner federal funds. Add in that homeless people by definition are off the grid and defy hard data.

I DON'T believe numbers which place national homelessness at 0.3%. From my synthesis of all studies I have read, and from my own examination in detail of how statistics are collected locally (and we do one of the BEST jobs of this in the country), I have come to the conclusion that homelessness nation-wide has been between 1% and 3% of the population at any given moment.

Craig, you are using the 54,000 figure for the population of Santa Cruz. But that is not the true population. The Boardwalk draws 3.4 million visitors a year. That swells the City's population by 9,315 per DAY! Add in that Santa Cruz is the county seat, and has most county services here, and the result is that we don't have "more than our share" of homeless people. We have our share.

SANTA CRUZ LOCAL claims that "homeless people don't want to work" and then ignores the data that says 40% are working, 10% of them fulltime.
Craig, are you disputing that 40% of our local homeless are working?

Lordy, here she goes again.

Let's clarify some simple points, okay?

1) A day visitor to the Boardwalk is not a resident and doesn't get included in our population.

2) Yours is called a self canceling post. When you start by asserting that statistics about homeless populations are extremely unreliable and that people taint them with their own bias....then try to finish by claiming that your self-produced stats, via synthesis by your own extremely biased self, are one of the best in the country.

And since you were braying yesterday that control groups are necessary to validate facts and experiments, you realize the hypocrisy of this double standard.

What was the accomplishment of the Koffee Klatch Putsch? Do you consider it one of your successes? How so?

BECKOCRITE WRITES: "
1) A day visitor to the Boardwalk is not a resident and doesn't get included in our population."

BECKY: So you want to ignore 9,000 + visitors a day to our city, some of whom may appear visibly homeless, but you want to challenge my math when I say Santa Cruz does not have more than its share of homeless people. 90% of our homeless are from California. 80% last had housing in Santa Cruz County. They are OUR homeless, and, given the REAL population of Santa Cruz, they represent somewhere between 1% and 3% of our total COUNTY population. These numbers are in line with numbers of homeless people in other places.

Yes, I want to ignore the tourists, because they aren't residents and as such, don't count as part of our population.

Tell you what, you show me one city, county, or state that counts tourists as part of its "population", and I'll agree with you.

And yes, I want to challenge your math because you invited me to. You told me that statistics were biased and not reliable, then you threw up your own numbers, selected and synthesised by yourself, as highly reliable. It's a hoot.

Becky Johnson wrote:

Craig, you are using the 54,000 figure for the population of Santa Cruz. But that is not the true population. The Boardwalk draws 3.4 million visitors a year. That swells the City's population by 9,315 per DAY!

I see we'll have to take this one step at a time.

The 3.4 million visitors to the Boardwalk only happens during a specific period of time during the year. You took that number and divided it by the total number of days in the year. 365. That's how you came up with 9315 per DAY. The increase in tourists coming to the Boardwalk is focused on May-August. The rest of the year the rides and attractions are open on a limited basis and draw FAR FEWER tourists. So during the other 8 months of the year the tourist impact is hardly perceptible.

Give us an example of ONE city in the United States that counts TOURISTS as a part of their population. Just ONE.

This is a prime example of you twisting figures to match your agenda. It is disingenuous and holds no weight whatsoever. The census figures state Santa Cruz has a population of 54000. And you yourself have used the 54000 number in every example of the city's population up until this post.

For you to state that the number should now include tourists that don't live here is knowingly misrepresenting facts and statistics.

Do you think we should be counting the number of people that only work in our community, but live somewhere else in our population figure? Even though they are counted in a population figure somewhere else as well?

Should we also include the number of people that just so happen to be driving through SC along highway 1 or on 17 during the course of the day?

This is truly one of the stupidest justifications you have ever come up with and really has to make people think again about your mental capacity. As if you have not already given people enough examples to base their conclusions on.

Becky Johnson wrote:

REPLY TO CRAIG: I have said repeatedly that statistics about homeless populations are extremely unreliable. Folks who do studies always have their own bias involved with City leaders trying to downplay the number of homeless and shelter providers trying to maximize the number of homeless to garner federal funds. Add in that homeless people by definition are off the grid and defy hard data.
I DON'T believe numbers which place national homelessness at 0.3%.

If the above statements are true then why did you post the following;

"BTW did you check out the REAL statistics in a REAL study I posted above? "

You tell us to believe the information from the study. You implore us to accept these as REAL statistics from a reliable source. Now you're telling us not to trust the statistics reported on? Why? Because after reviewing the information you've now decided it does not match your information so it is no longer valid, when yesterday it was?

You really do not impress people with a sense of authority on a subject when you post information one day as fact and then dispute it the next day as unreliable. Can you really question why people think you are a loon and a charlatan? You don't even stand behind information you yourself present as fact. It's always a changing target to suit your needs of today.

What will it be tomorrow? A ouija board as a font of knowledge?

Becky Johnson wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that homelessness nation-wide has been between 1% and 3% of the population at any given moment.

When did you come to this conclusion? Today? Yesterday? You have never posted before that the homeless population was up to 3%. You have consistently stated that it was 1%. You have said this on many many occasions. Now you're saying that number may be off by 200%. And what about all of the studies, articles and statistics you have quoted for months and months and months that state the number at 1%? I read the links you provided and none of the information said the number went as high as 3%.

If you ask us to not believe the figures supplied by these sources then I hope you never refer to any of these studies, statistics, agencies or articles again. Since you are now saying that they are unreliable and the information is not correct.

And what does this leave you with? Your own feelings and conjecture.