Good afternoon. Good evening, everyone who's joining us for our virtual community input session. We need just a few minutes to get everything set up for our Spanish translation. So we'll be starting in a couple minutes when Sasha lets me know that we're ready to go. Thank you. My interpreters that are here identify themselves in the chat is asking for my interpreters that are here to identify themselves in the chat. Thanks everyone for joining us. Just give us a few minutes while we get the interpreters set up. Thank you. Does anyone who's here currently need translation services can you identify yourself in the chat if you need translation. We'll give it just another minute before we get started. Thank you. Is there anyone who needs translation in Spanish? Please put your name in the chat. Let's go ahead and get started. Sasha, I do see Pablo has joined us as one of our translators. Well, good afternoon. Good evening, everybody. I'm Kelly Kaikendall with the city of Santa Rosa. Thank you so much for joining us for our homelessness solutions strategic plan community input session. I'm the city's homeless services manager I'm going to start with a couple housekeeping items and then we're going to turn it over to introductions of city of Santa Rosa staff and focus strategies staff. I wanted to remind everybody about the city of Santa Rosa's commitment to civility. I'll cover it briefly and then we're going to post it in the chat it's part of today's agenda and both English and Spanish to assure civility in its public meetings, the Santa Rosa City Council has adopted rules of decorum. It's applicable to the council staff and the public to be followed at council meetings and implemented by staff at other public meetings hosted by the city. In an effort to promote respect for the freedom of speech and the right to request that elected officials address the distance issues that relate to city business the city council and city staff seeks to. Now there's six points I'm just going to touch on to briefly. The remainder of them will be included in the chat. The first one is help create an atmosphere of respect and civility where elected officials, city staff and the public are free to express their ideas. And the second is establish and maintain a cordial and respectful atmosphere during the sessions. Thank you. I already introduced myself I'm going to turn it over to Megan passenger. Good evening I'm Megan passenger I'm the director of housing and community services for the city of Santa Rosa. Sasha you want to go next. Hi I'm Sasha Cohen I'm program specialist for homeless services division with the city of Santa Rosa. Tara. Good evening I'm Tara growth I'm a senior consultant with focus strategies. Tracy. Hi, my name is Tracy Bennett I'm director of analytics and evaluation with focus strategies. And Hannah. Oh I'm Hannah Gossage. I'm a consultant with focus strategies. Before we jump in. I did, we're going to put up a poll. Sasha's going to help us with that. It's going to ask people where you whether you live or work in Santa Rosa so if you can please take that poll before we get started. Appreciate it. Thank you. Give you a couple minutes to do that. Okay, hoping you all had a chance to take the poll we're going to move on and Megan if you could advance this to the first slide please. So here's a slide covering the agenda we've already done. Welcome and introductions. I'll provide in a brief overview of the strategic planning process. The city is in the process of developing a five year strategic plan and we've engaged focus strategies to help us in that process. And part of that involves stakeholder engagement and this community input session is one of several engagements that are underway to to gather the stakeholders and the public couple housekeeping keeping items to touch on real quick. The participant input and discussion section will comprise three questions with 20 minutes for each question. You can provide input in the chat or raise your hand. We request that you keep your input on topic with the questions and brief to allow everyone a chance to participate. We will do our best to give everyone a chance to provide input. You can also provide input via the let's connect sir survey until June 1. And if you have input outside of the scope of the questions or the strategic planning process please direct those to homeless at srcity.org. And Sasha will post a link to the survey and our email in the chat. I will be timing members the public as they're providing input. I'm just going to start to go over that two minutes. I'm just going to give you a reminder to wrap up your, your thoughts and your comments, just so that we can provide everybody an opportunity to participate. With that, Megan, you can advance the next slide and I'll turn it over to focus strategies to cover the presentation before we jump into the community input session. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I want to give an overview of the purpose of the strategic plan. So as Kelly mentioned, focus strategies and assisting the city with developing a five year homelessness solution strategic plan and an action plan to address homelessness in the city of Santa Rosa. Part of that process will be identifying existing resources and gaps within the city, developing clear and concise goals that are measurable and actionable and implementing strategies to reduce homelessness in the city of Santa Rosa. Next slide. I want to take you through the timeline of our process. So we've completed some information gathering and review that happened this spring. We are now in the last part of the stakeholder engagement process, which is occurring from April to June of this year. We will then develop a report that gives an overview of the current homelessness response and best practices, which will happen in the summer months. And then we will draft a plan and incorporate feedback from July through September and finalize the plan with the city council in September of this year. Next slide. As I mentioned, our current phase is the key stakeholder interviews, including the current phases is gathering information and community input that includes key stakeholder interviews with service providers and city officials, advocates and other key people involved in the homelessness response system. We're also holding focus groups with service providers, housing developers and people experiencing homelessness, both sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. And then you are participating this evening in the community input session. Next slide. So part of the community input is we want to know how community members such as yourself define success. So when we are asking the next question, we'd like you to think about both how you define success, and what key goals and strategies should be incorporated in the plan. So we can move into our, our question and input phase. If the city staff are ready for that. Yeah, before we jump into the first yeah, Sasha I think you had some information to share with the public about how to raise your hand or provide input. Yes, thank you. If you have a comment, you can raise your hand please if you're calling in to listen to the meeting audibly you can dial star nine to raise your hand. We will move one by one down the list of attendees with their hands raised. Once you've commented the zoom host will lower your hand. If you're listening on the Spanish channel but wishing to comment please turn off or leave the interpretation entirely at that time you hear your name called so you can join the main channel to make your comment heard and translated into English. The icon may now look like a circle with an ES in the middle in the word Spanish underneath. You can then rejoin the Spanish channel at the conclusion of your comment to continue listening to Spanish. The next question is about what does the success of the five year homelessness strategic plan look like to you. If the plan were implemented, what would the landscape of homelessness look like in five years. Adrian covert. Hi, thank you. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay, great. I think I think this is a great question. I'm going to throw out a couple ideas. The success look like in five years. I think the rate of homelessness. That is the number of homeless residents per 10,000 residents overall would be have or some goal, but the goal should be you know the relative prevalence of homelessness in Sonoma County. It's about 56 in the 2020 pit counter is 56 homeless residents per 10,000 residents overall I know that's the county figure. We can drill that down to the city figure. I think that is as good a metric as any. That metric is available to for for continuums of care throughout the country. So it's a good way to track progress. The rate of homelessness. I also think that the another key factor should be the rate of unsheltered homelessness that is the, the rate of people who do become homeless in the city, the ability of them to access shelter which is a basic human We should be trying to get at least to the national average outside of California, the unsheltered rate in California is about 75% of homeless residents lack access to shelter. It's about that in Sonoma County I'm unsure what it is in the city of Santa Rosa but it's probably similar around 7075% In California and the rest of the United States, the numbers are reversed, only about 25% of homeless Americans outside of California lack access to shelter. So I think the two key metrics for me, I'm a resident of the West End District I volunteered for the pit count to do the pit count in February for my name, my neighborhood would be trying to bring down the rate of homelessness overall and reducing the rate of unsheltered homelessness. Thank you. All right, next will be Arlie. Yes, hi, I'm, I have been involved with housing the homeless and servicing the needs of the homeless for a while. And to me, people do not understand what it's like for the homeless to be on the street, and without. I think that public relations needs to be improved about the conditions that the homeless live stay in. And I also think that in five years, we really should have safe havens developed for the homeless that aren't just mass tense that they have like 20 or 50 beds inside that, you know, it could be tiny homes it could be RVs it could be just living in their cars but it needs to, we need to have locations where they can get their stuff together, because that is one of the main difficulties that they are so scattered having to move around over time and other reasons. These, these shelters, these shelters that they do have need to be reclassified. And in the in the classification of shelter, it could include safe parking and individual units, because, well, just because that makes sense. Anyway, I have other ideas but that's some of them. Thanks. You guys are doing a good job. Thank you. And Jeanine Peterson. Can you hear me. Yes. Hello. Well, mainly, the first thing is that I've, I've written into the city many times and because we've had a problem in my neighborhood in Bellevue Ranch with the homeless being on Silver Spur for over two years. In the first year I didn't say anything because of COVID and and you know all of those people there on drugs. And I mean I'm sure that you guys have been by there before and seeing the situation. And it's just hard for me because I live right on gold pan and right around the corner. It's like really distressing for the neighbors and to see that and another RV has just moved in a huge RV and they're all they're all drug addicts. And you know and I've been threatened many times and I just, I feel like that's first and foremost I would like them moved off of the street, you know, because this, you know, it's by Meadowview School and you know there's kids around and it's just, I've heard teenagers say, Mom, you know, don't I don't want to walk this way I don't want to walk past these people and you know they're all on drugs and the guys laying out there constantly.  And I just think that this shouldn't be going on in our neighborhood. And so that's the first thing and I just, I mean I really don't know what can be done because most of these people are on drugs and alcohol. And I've talked to numerous people that are in that situation and they want to continue living that way because they want to continue their lifestyle.  Next will be Jackie Ghani. Can you hear me. Yes, I can. Hi. Okay, so I have a couple of concerns. Just recently there was an article in the press democrat regarding the palms hotel and the millions of dollars that were spent making that a homeless housing situation and now the, you know, it's practically uninhabitable with vermin and mold and insects. So if we're going to spend a lot of and I don't know because I didn't hear your plan I was waiting for a five year plan and I didn't hear much that I don't know what the plan is but I'm assuming it's going to include government money for housing and if that's the case we need to make sure that there's some accountability and some follow through for where there's dollars going to go it's not just here here's here's millions of dollars here and then walk away and there's no oversight for that. And the other thing is I agree with the previous woman that I don't think that there should be camps allowed in residential areas period. I think that there should be an uninvitable pass a ban on camping in residential areas. And I think that Senator, Senator Rosa should too because I mean I'm concerned about homeless as much as anyone else but I'm also concerned about the quality of our neighborhoods and the quality of maintaining, you know, our quality of life and what used to be a really beautiful town to live in. That's my comments. Thank you Jackie, and next we'll have Debbie McKay. Hi, thanks for this opportunity. So there's several things I would like to see. I'd like to see more safe parking. It took the city a really long time to finally be willing to do that and I actually live quite close to where the safe parking is and I just want to say it works. There's been no problems that I can see and so I'd like to see that expanded. That's not necessarily the total solution but it keeps people in a safer environment. I'd like to see, I mean, ideally I'd like to see no unsanctioned camps. If we can come up with enough alternatives, then there won't need to be unsanctioned camps. So I'd like to see more tiny houses or similar housing to the housing that's out at Los Guilicos. I'd like to see less dependent on homeless shelters because I think those are attractive to very few people. Most people would rather be out on the street and be in those large homeless shelters because they have no privacy. They don't feel safe. And with COVID and things like that, it makes even more of an issue of feeling safe. I see really robust mental health services. I'm really thrilled that the city has started the in response program and has a plan to grow that. And I think that having robust mental health services is a part of hearing homelessness. And I'm not saying that everyone that's homeless is mentally ill, but I think that people become mentally ill or have mental health issues when they become homeless. Because it's extremely difficult to live out on the streets and not know where you're going to sleep or where you're going to get food every night. So I think that that is adding to our mental health problems.  And I'd also like to see more long term drug rehab programs in Sonoma County. We are really lacking in that. And for people who want to get out of their addiction, it's a long term process and they need a lot of support to do that. And the 30 day programs that the county offers and things like that help some people, but for a lot of people, that's not enough. So I'm hoping you'll look at a more global picture besides just sheltering people, providing the wraparound services that can help them make changes in their life to where they will not just fall back. Into homelessness when they receive help that they can have a plan. That's long term that helps them transition their life to a different place. I don't think anybody really wants to be homeless. And I think we need to give them the services they need to be able to live a decent life in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Debbie. And next we'll have Victoria Yanis. Thank you very much for this opportunity to ask a question. I'm concerned with the city's policy to cite unsheltered persons swept out of private property to cite them with a misdemeanor trespassing citation. Excuse me. Hello. Yes, we can hear you. Okay. Because a sign just came up to said that your speaker will unmute again. Anyway, I'm sorry. Yes. We have a lot of citations that came out of shamrock sweep. And there's an imminent sweep about to take place with with about 100 people. And this policy of criminalizing the homeless is absolutely absurd in my opinion. And I was wondering what you were going to recommend to the city's strategic plan regarding citing people with misdemeanors. Now, the other part of the question is regarding the general assistance program of the county. And welfare institutions code 17,000, 1000 places, the duty on the county to be the last safety net. But these kinds of situations don't happen. You know, so what I want to know is, is the county going to work with, I mean the city is a city going to work with the county to help them meet their duty, or at least pressure them to meet their duty, which would really alleviate a lot of the problems that could have prevented it if they would have given housing services to begin with in the general assistance program. Thank you very much. Thank you, Victoria for your comments. Next will be Gail. Oh, can you hear me now. I can hear you. Yeah. Okay, well I'm mostly listening but I just want to say that because of a situation with my late brothers house getting foreclosed I was on the verge of becoming homeless and if it were not for the homeless coalition. And Michael gals, and Joseph Haged is I very well might have been saying in my car because I really didn't know where to go but thankfully I was able to get into the program at the holiday and Windsor. And I stayed there for four months with my little emotional support dog and I just am very grateful for that. And as a result they were helping people there to move on to the next stage and now I'm very, very, very, very, very grateful that I was able to get into apartment complex. It's called the sage commons and it's for people that have been homeless, or have had some issues with mental health. So that's a good thing. And it's part of a question goes. I'm listening to what everyone says, and especially the gentleman just before me and I just think of a lady. Everybody is saying some good things and I'm really happy that people are trying to alleviate this. One of my concerns is that it is my belief that well what that lady said about everybody on drugs not necessarily everybody was on drugs maybe a lot of them were. But my one of my concerns is what we do with people that choose to be homeless if they don't want to be housed so that's one of my concerns. Thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you gale for your comments next will be gale simons. Hello, can you hear me. I can go ahead. Okay, thank you. Well, I hope it doesn't take us five years to get to the plan that I would like to see happen. I feel that we need to have 100% of people off the streets. I think that the majority of people would like to have some safety. I think that we could do it so quickly by starting a program, a temporary program but one that will last as long as it needs to have tiny homes, safe parking for RVs and safe parking and safe tent villages that we're offering safety sanitation and services like health mental health substance abuse services job services, housing services, and more over these tiny villages would be offering a sense of community. And a former nurse and a want to be public health nurse I got my training in that area and at UCSF and I know that a sense of community brings health to all of us we are social animals. And I would like very much to stop seeing the senseless moving of people from place to place without enough available slots here in the county I can count. We don't have enough available spots for all the people that don't have housing so I think we need to do you do temporary measures as I've just mentioned. Finally, I would like to see complete transparency in the reporting of data to the public frequently of all the various agencies that are involved. Thank you. Thank you, Gail. Next will be Colin Thomas. Good evening, this is Colin Thomas and I look at this space in the legal center will based in San Rosa. So, um, kind of just really the senior plan is having structures be more accessible for people who have bridges, other mobility devices. In addition to having tiny homes that are also rich accessible for those who have for those who may have another mobility device. Thank you, Colin. Next will be Scott Stevenson. Oh, my mic working. You can hear you. Okay, great. Um, so for the five year plan, kind of metric for measuring success, just a few things. We live in downtown and go on bike rides and feel safe play at parks with my family and not having to worry about my son or any of his friends coming across needles and feel safe in the evenings in our own neighborhood. We actually, we live close to downtown. There's a lot of homeless people passing through our neighborhood every, every night and you know cars get broken into homes have been broken into and it's a big, it's a big issue. You know, so the, I think identifying what kind of bucket the homeless person falls into if it was just financial. And they, you know, just need to get back on their feet or if they're dealing with addiction or mental health, kind of one of those three buckets is going to be very important because that's going to determine how we can best help them. And I really liked what Gail said previously about just addressing this immediately with with tiny homes, safe parking and tenting villages. I think, you know, that could be very, very helpful and a quick kind of a quick fix on this to at the right direction. And then one other thing to add was just allowing loitering. We went on a bike ride downtown yesterday. And we came across at least 20 homeless people on a bike ride downtown and there were times where we felt unsafe going through groups of them, you know, with my with my seven year old son, you know, they're just loitering. They were when they were right downtown buddy, when they were just loitering and you know drinking and doing who knows what else you know near the transit mall and all that and downtown Santa Rosa. Yeah, so I think not allowing them to loiter, you know, so that I don't know if that falls under the SRPD, you know, to address that but we're, we're allowing them to loiter we're allowing them to build up in certain areas where they're camping and then days or you know why once there's enough then we move them and it's like, it's like a shell game we just keep moving them around, you know, and it's like, I don't know it's not effective so I've just the safety is a big thing so I think that's a very easy way to measure that. Thank you. Thank you Scott, our final participant who's going to speak on this question will be Lisa Landras and then we're going to move on to the next question. Lisa. Sorry Lisa. Okay, sorry Lisa that we couldn't hear you. We're going to go ahead and move on to the next question. Tara. Yes, so our next question is what services or resources do you think people experiencing homelessness in the city of Santa Rosa need to reduce community wide impact. Denise Hill, your first. Hey everybody thanks for this meeting. I strongly strongly believe, having lived next to several major encampments in the city in the last couple of years that it's beyond just the housing first initiative, it has to include we have to include mental health and addiction facility centers and add to those beds were so poorly under capacity for those the beds that we need and I know that that rolls into the county but I'm seriously hoping that the city council and whoever else on staff is advocating to the county that we need these beds, long term and short term, in order to address the situation of people who refuse treatment because they're mentally don't have the capacity to know what they're agreeing to, or their drug addicted and less inclined to read to reach out for services. I would love to see that we focus on this and included acknowledge it and included as a needed resource. Thank you Denise. Next I'll have Melissa Kaplan please. Hi and thank you for this meeting. As I've been listening to the last questions in the comments and this one. One thing that I think a lot of people miss is chicken and egg. Someone who becomes homeless for long enough to develop does develop mental health issues and that can lead to self medicating which can internally to addiction and you can get a vicious cycle going that way. We have a lot of people who are in securely home they may be couch surfing. They may be, you know, car camping in a relatives driveway for a short length of time before they're kicked out. So, at first and foremost, we need affordable truly affordable housing for people who are low income and have oftentimes no employment opportunities at the moment. So there needs to be housing first before we can sweep people off the streets. And there needs to be a variety of housing types to handle individuals individuals with their, with their pet and fun families. And then we also need sufficient mental health and health services. So we need to make ways for people who do not have vehicles to be able to access those services, whether it's bus passes or jitties or whatever. If you can't access the services, because you have no way to get there. It doesn't matter how flush we are with services. So, all of this needs to be in place, I think, along with safe housing and safe, a safe parking all of the different opportunities for people to have a place to go that is safe. So before we start doing any more sweeps of encampments and I know it sucks to have it in your neighborhood and down the street from you. But until we have solutions in place, I don't think sweeping people out of areas and bouncing them from one area to another is a solution. Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. Next I'm going to have Janine Peterson. Okay, thank you. So first of all, I'd like to say, regarding my last response. I wasn't referring to everybody that becomes homeless is drug addicted or alcohol dependent or mentally ill even, but the people in the Bellevue Ranch area on Silver Spur they are. And they all do have a vehicle and they all have a huge RV. So they have shelter, and they are not willing to move out of the neighborhood because it is conveniently located to Southwest Park where they could dump their garbage and use the water.  And it's just, you know, and the guy yells it means is that you know this isn't your street and technically it's all of our streets because we pay the property taxes and other taxes to be able to have these streets. And, you know, so I feel that something like in this situation it should be implemented that you know if they don't want to get clean and sober, if they don't want to live a normal lifestyle because most of the people that are on drugs and alcohol. I know people personally and I used to be a drug and alcohol counselor myself, and I have talked to people and volunteered with Catholic Charities at the Palms. And so I know what I'm talking about. Most people like their lifestyle because they can come and go as they please, and they don't have to be accountable. And so, in this situation like in my neighborhood I feel that if they don't want to participate in being clean and sober, they need to have an area where they're told okay well you have to move out of this presidential neighborhood and put your car in the parking lot designated for people with RVs, it's so unfair to us to have to see that. I mean, it's ridiculous the first thing my friends see is why is this happening. It's been going on for two years has become a running joke in our neighborhood, and it's really sad. You know, I feel like if I was to put my proper my house up for sale. Today, I don't know who would want to live in the neighborhood and my house is, you know we keep our houses beautiful. Thank you for your comments sorry you just went over a few minutes and I want to make sure everybody has an opportunity to provide input thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll have Debbie McKay. Okay, so the things I would suggest is to do more economic and budget training and counseling with people, because a lot of people don't know how to manage their money and that would include things like assisting people with applying for disability. I think there are sources of income that people that could have access to if they have some assistance with that. I think it's also worthwhile looking at having some kind of a buddy system that could be two homeless people or it could be somebody in the community with a homeless person. But if somebody they would check in with on a regular basis would help be somebody to help them navigate all these crazy systems that they have to deal with. And I know there's some of that going on within response but not everybody's going to be served by in response. So some kind of a buddy system to help people navigate. And I agree with the comments that have made by other people about having more mental health and drug treatment programs available to people. And I think another thing that would help is if there was some kind of system to patrol our creek. There's a lot of homeless people are living along the creek and that makes the creek feel not safe for the rest of us. And you might take a look at what Boise, Idaho has done. They have a really robust program of patrolling the creeks with volunteers and it works really, really well. So there's models out there that you could look to probably for all of these things that are being suggested. And then of course we need much, much more affordable housing. I think it's a mistake for the city of Santa Rosa to accept in lieu fees from developers because that affordable housing rarely gets built because there's not enough money from those fees. And it also tends to get built in the low income neighborhood. So I think they need to really look at that policy and maybe go back to requiring developers to include the affordable housing in their market rate development. It's also better for children to be raised in that kind of environment. And again there's studies on that that would validate that. Thank you. Thank you Debbie. Next we'll have Lisa Landress. Lisa can't hear you. I see you're unmuted but there's no sound I apologize. I'm going to go ahead and move on to Lori Burmire. Yes, hi. Good evening. I would like to see a complete centralized center within the city to that is perfectly clear to citizens and homeless and unsheltered people. I feel like the citizens of Santa Rosa and listening to some of the comments that they're very they're not clear as to what they can do to remove the encampments in their neighborhood if they can at all. And I don't think it's clear. I don't think the city or the county sends a message to the residents or the homeless. These are the options. This is what you can do and this is how we get from point A to point B. Having housing, safe parking, tents, tiny homes, that's all part of it, but then what? And that's where we have the issues.  We don't have the drug rehabs. We don't know how to get people from point A to point B in a smooth manner. And furthermore, what we really don't have is any accountability for the dollars that are spent we spend millions upon millions of dollars. And we don't know how they're spent. If they're spent wisely, did this cost too much? And I think an oversight committee made up of maybe a council of members, employees from the city or the county and citizens to for a measurable amount of like where these dollars are going. That's my opinion. Thank you. Thank you, Lori. Next will be Albert Bruin. The subject that has not been yet addressed is the failure of local governance to provide for the last 40 years that I know of. Because I have been the resident of Sonoma County for longer than that. And I lived in Santa Rosa for 20 years. The failure of local governance to ensure that the housing affordable, affordable housing be built according to what HUD predictions have been. And local governance has been completely derelict in its responsibility in this regard. Everything has been market housing. And what would the future of homelessness look like? There's something very different, I hope. But the NIMBYs and other folks who are not interested in building affordable housing with the economy and the state that it's in. We're looking at approximately 40 to 50% of the population that cannot afford housing in Sonoma County. Whose fault is that? And the homelessness situation is only going to get worse because local governance is only catering to the so-called gentrification. And they are not the least bit concerned about working people and those who are disabled or in need and cannot afford the housing prices that are... There's more people than houses. That's all a person needs to know. So if somebody has to be homeless, what is going to be done about this? Let's stop all the hand wringing and build, build, build affordable housing. The answer to most of this, yes, we could use better programs. Yes, we could use competent case managers by the providers, people that are certified and have knowledge. They have skill sets in their field, but the main problem is you can't put people in housing that does not exist. Thank you, Albert. Next will be Colin Thomas. In addition to having both mental health and drug services, they have miniatures and access to disability organizations. And then they should also do better job with housing, making sure that they have access to home key and room key sites as well as housing vouchers. And that staff is knowledgeable of how cognitive disabilities can make that process harder and as well as on disability claims. That would be a help. Thank you. Thank you, Colin. Next we'll have Jackie Ghani. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, so I think what if the question is what's needed, I would think that there should be some wraparound services in addition to housing for the homeless, mental health, alcohol addiction services. You can't just put them in homes and walk away.  Also, when we're talking about the homeless really do need to address the needs of the entire community who has to deal with homeless, especially the people who have to deal with homeless in their neighborhoods. It's like Jenny and said it's, it's really not fair for citizens to be having to deal with encampments with the drugs and everything right next to their homes. So I think that drives down the property values it. And I'm just saying that I think that there needs to be some consideration for people in this community and I'm going to say it again I think there needs to be a ban on residential camping in all neighborhoods in Sonoma County. I think we'll pass that ban Berkeley pass that ban and I don't see why Santa Rosa can't pass that ban. Thank you. Thank you Jackie. And we'll have gale Simons. Yes, thank you. I about for affordable housing I want to say that on April 26 I'm sorry about the phone, it'll stop. On April 26 I attended a city council meeting at which the city council okayed a planned affordable housing project of 136 beds. And when they were asked about what affordable meant. I learned out that for people that could just pay 30% of their income for housing and I'll bet most of us on this meeting. Don't pay 50 or 60% of our income on housing for housing. Anyway, out of that 136 beds for people that could only pay 30% only 14 housing units, we're going to be built. We're going to be 50 to 60% of people's income. So we need to attend meetings we need to be careful when we say affordable house we know what that really means. Now I'd like to go back to the question that is at hand, really basically, I think that I wish that phone work. I think that sanitation is really important and trash services and water at at sanctioned safe encampments. It's shocking to me that Santa Rosa only has one toilet open 24 hours a day to the public one. We would also propose that if we had many safe parking lots or safe camping lots not near neighborhoods. We don't have to have them there. We could have some that were free services to whoever needed them then we could have another one that charge $25 a month to the people that would like to live there. And for that amount, daily showers and Wi-Fi would be supplied. And then there would be another safe encampment that would charge $50 a month. And for that, we would have an outdoor kitchen that they could use. So I think that would allow participation of the people that were having to live in sanctioned encampments. There could even be sober living sanctioned encampments or safe parking areas. And for people that didn't want to have that restriction, there could be a separate sanctioned parking lot or encampment. So those are some of my ideas. We need sanitation. We need trash. Very sad that the city has taken porta potties away from some encampments. Okay, thank you. So we're going to go ahead and move on to the next question. Yes, so our next question is, what strategies would you like to see the city include in the strategic plan to address homelessness. For example, and some of you have already commented on some of these options, but increase interim housing options. For example, emergency shelter, permanent supportive housing, medical and behavioral health partnerships, etc. So we'd like to hear from you on the strategies you would like the city to include. All right, first will be Victoria Yanis. Thank you for this opportunity. Like I said earlier, I wanted to know where exciting people for misdemeanors fit in the strategic plan. Because continuing with this policy and practice would mean that they were lessening the person's chances to be able to find rental housing. And they're building a criminal record on unsheltered persons, the criminalization of homelessness. Now, so I would like to see a plan that would exclude the criminalization of homeless. Also, there should be a plan to have a I raised my hand up in the last section and it wasn't answered so I'm, I'm integrating it here that part of the plan should be besides the places for people to go which we need plenty of those, plenty of permanent housing and all that people have addressed that. But we need Santa Rosa's own navigation center, so that we can keep good data, and we can provide services like showers and bathrooms and clothing and food. We can provide that along with the navigation, pointing people to the services, the mental health services, and the services to help regarding substance problems. But we definitely, I want to see how, how these misdemeanors are fitting into any sort of plan I don't think that anybody thought of that they haven't thought about it out. Just like when they were giving infractions, when they would do a sweep I thought they gave that up, but this is involving private property understand that. Thank you very much. Thank you Victoria. And before I call the next person I do just want to advise that if you haven't spoken yet and you want to go ahead and raise your hand I will be prioritizing calling on you so that you would be able to have a chance to speak. Next I'm going to have Vaughn Sawatski. Yeah, so I'm in the don't feed the bears camp. So when everybody talks about affordable housing and such it really comes down to you know what is the city code and how much does a house cost I don't believe the homeless should be given any special rights to break any rules that the rest of us have to live by.  So yeah, they need to be taught manners to live like decent people. And I'm not quite certain why it's my job to spend my tax money to give to these people. But really, that's what I'd like to see in the strategic plan is the justification for spending the money because as near as I can tell there's not a solution for homelessness, there's a problem, but there's really not a solution. And everybody wants to think there's a solution, but there doesn't seem to be. I mean I'm looking at focus strategies. There's no, there's no solutions on that website this a lot of consultation and quantitative analysis, which I understand quite well, but there's no real solutions or proof of it going to work. So before you spend all the money. I would really like to see on the website on the Santa Rosa city, what it is you think is going to work, and why you think it's going to work, because what I seen a working back in 2007, there wasn't much homeless here in Santa Rosa. And so whatever's happened since then, that's the problem. That's what needs to change. I agree with, I think that was Scott Stevenson it's disgusting sometimes it's very unsafe. It's not right that people who own the city and take care of it have to be, you know, terrorized like he was talking about by people. So, it's very interesting when what is it the Ironman comes to town that creek is clean as can be and you can find a homeless person anywhere close. So it's possible. I seen it happen every year. The police know what to do. Everybody knows what to do, you know, super weird that we think that we should homeless. There's homeless people in a place where it's 150% cost of living, where the entire middle of the United States is around 90 seem like that's a pretty straightforward financial point of view. You know, I come across maybe is not caring, but it's very realistic, like I said, that's it. Thank you, Vaughn. Next I'm going to have Kate 05 Kate 05 you're going to have to unmute. Sorry Kate we can't hear you we're going to go ahead and move on to Nelson Ramos. Yes, can you hear me. Yes, go ahead. I think the main service we actually have to offer is for people are mentally ill and senior citizens. If you're able to work, you're young, they should get a job, and they should pay.   I do agree with the previous person that said that they have an account in their house I mean, I'm paying half a million dollars for a home. I'm paying $8,000 in taxes. And now to sit and put up with that. That's not fair. But all of us that, you know, follow the rules, we shouldn't be giving the short end of the stick and make it easier for people that have substance abuse or junkies and obviously I know it's an OMA is expensive to live in but you know, we could offer services to lower the cost for housing but again I think this giving freebies to able young people that just don't want to work is is the way the only freebies that should be handed out to other people that have mental issues or again are old and can't work. I mean there's a wineries here that mean they could bottle they could pick grapes they could if the wineries don't want them then you know create a job where they pick up trash along the city. And keep them busy, not just lounge around and just waste time. But again, those are the only two services that should be issued. If you're young, you know, give up affordable, you know, some kind of affordable housing for them. Thank you, Nelson. Next will be Anita Miglio. I wanted to say I agree with the last call. Same thing that, you know, we should have, I think the ideal situation would be if we had case workers, you know, addressing people that are in the homeless camps and kind of, you know, constantly being on them about, you know, here's the resources that we have available. One caller was saying that there's no affordable housing. That's not true. I work with all kinds of property management. There's Burbank housing. There's dozens and dozens and dozens of low income housing here in Selma County has been my observation. There might be a waitlist because there's a lot of, you know, demand for it, but there's not that the city's not offering that I want to make sure everyone's clear on that. I've seen it with my own eyes.  There are people that out there that, you know, they're like, well, why should I work when I can get stuff for free? That's their mentality. They don't care about standards or being responsible. I'm just a big fan of being responsible. I'm a single woman. I worked hard all my life and I've saved up to be able to afford a house. You know, I took that responsibility because I work hard. It rubs me the wrong way to know that there's people that they don't care and there's just how to take advantage of whatever, you know, the city's offering or take advantage of hardworking people by, you know, stealing their things or carrying them in the neighborhood. I just, I'm not a fan of rewarding bad behavior at bottom line.  I think that's the best plan. Thank you, Anita. Next will be Michael Titan. Naomi. Yes. So what I would like to see, I agree with everything Victoria said, I strongly believe that a lot of because I've, I've been out to encampments quite a lot for the last five or so years. Forming relationships with people getting to understand their circumstances. And what I can say is there's a lot of trauma. And there's a lot of compounding of issues that people have when they're number one, they don't have any money. Number two, they have to rely on other people to take care of themselves because they have to have someone watch their stuff for instance.  They're dealing with a lot. And if you were dealing with everything that they're dealing with, you would not be having an easy life. I would like to see an end to the criminalization of homelessness. I believe that it should not be required for anyone to accept services. There needs to be places for people to go where they're not going to be arrested.  People need somewhere to be. And I think people fundamentally should have a right to just be and not have a, you don't have to have a house. That's a commodity. Why do we make people buy a commodity that's, that's insane. People should be allowed to exist without being arrested or being harassed for it. I believe people do need help that we can get, but, and that's that comes in through services. We need more places for people to go. There's a lot of people experiencing PTSD, or who have issues being in crowded environments with a lot of other folks. And I think those people need more non congregate shelter options. Take a look at how our motel system is managed and improve the conditions there. We also, there also needs to be a lot more outreach to homeless people to get their opinions and their feedback because from what I'm seeing, it doesn't look like there's all that much outreach to actual encampments until people accept Sam Jones or they accept services. And if you want to help a group of people, you need to speak with them directly. So I'm going to end with that. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Next will be Carol. Hi. Thank you so much for hosting this forum so that we can gather, you know, everyone's feedback and opinions. A couple of points I want to make. I feel strongly that residential neighborhoods should not have to support the homeless in temporary sidewalk housing RV parking, whatever it may be. We're here because we put ourselves into an economic situation where we can live in a nice neighborhood. We pay our property taxes. We live by the rules. We don't create a blight on the city. And I don't think we should accommodate people who don't have the resources or the capacity to live a certain lifestyle. I just don't think we, we need to take on that burden. I also know that social media has also contributed to people coming up to Sonoma County, who are homeless, because there is, you know, communication that we offer a lot of services up here. We are tolerant. And so I think the more services we provide, probably the more people will come. I know it's that case in San Francisco. That's well known throughout the homeless community. It's a great place to go because you can get everything you need there, and nobody's going to bother you. So I don't know if Santa Rosa wants to be like that. The other thing is I've been watching a lot of YouTube videos, particularly videos that are produced by Mark later and his YouTube channel is called soft white underbelly. And he actually goes out to homeless encampments in the Los Angeles area, and he interviews people. He doesn't come in and he does pay them for their interview, but he actually talks to people who are living on the streets.  And his, his kind of summary is that a lot of these people were not going to be able to help because they were so traumatized when they were young that they have issues that they're really never going to get over, which is very, very sad, but I would recommend people going to that channel and watching those interviews it's fascinating it's, it's emotional it's heartbreaking, but it's really what's going on. And I agree with the other person who spoke that said, we need to talk to the homeless. I mean, we're out here thinking well what do they need well let's see I don't know let's do this let's do that. Let's talk to the people who are experiencing homelessness.  Anyway, I think that's all I wanted to say but hopefully we can get to some kind of resolution but it needs to take a lot less time than five years. Thank you very much. We're going to have three more speakers it's going to be Juanita Cynthia and then Rena. So Juanita, go ahead. I just say, we're, we're all out here because something bad in our lives has happened and we don't know how to handle it, or in the services out here don't promote themselves as I didn't know any of this. If I didn't have friends that showed me any of the stuff that you guys have all the programs. I don't know anything. And I ran shamrock here. And I had 70 people there. We worked every day there was work done every day in camp. We volunteered to clean Robert's road from Robert's road all the way up to Sony points the trail. We did our own dump runs. So, we're, we're far far, not, I mean by far lazy. We figure out every day where our next meal is going to come from. When the weather is bad. All of us are looking for blankets, dry blankets online or, you know, and I think that because we're all, we've all been out here for so long that it's kind of scary when you get services and they just throw you in a place. So, I think that we need to have an encampment that has tents to RV trailers to RVs to little homes, and then, you know, let people work up through that. That way they're not just throwing in someone. It's scary. Who is. And the places that like Sam Jones or other shelters can't have visitors. When you just get off the streets with the camp of 70, or even 30, you're gonna want someone around. I'm not saying bring a little pamphlet or anything, but I don't think they should be so hard on them because of the leaders. Hey, I'm sorry to interrupt you and I thank you for sharing your comments but I need you to wrap it up just so we can have the other speakers get their their time and share their input. Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll have Cynthia Toran. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay. I appreciated actually wanted his comments because I also agree that instead of asking us what everybody needs we should be asking the homeless. What they think they need. On the other hand, I think that there do need to be some standards of behavior standards of living. And I can relate to people going through traumas in life but we all have probably had some and have to learn to deal with them. So, if it takes, you know, mental health counseling, and that sort of thing. Job training everywhere I look, there's help wanted ads so, you know, it's not just job training, it's, you know, in order to have many of us learn these things, having jobs in high school or whatever you have to show up on time you have to be clean you have to be respectful, you have to realize that there's rules from your boss and that sort of thing. We really need to do things to get people on their feet and work, I do not believe that it's okay to just exist. I don't think that's a right of any of us we have responsibilities as citizens of this country, and people need to be trained that those are responsibilities. And so I agree with many of the others that they're just many of the others that I don't appreciate people who don't take some responsibility any place you walk around in my neighborhood, there's a lot of trash.  Why does the trash need to be left. That is just one basic standard so anyway, I think there needs to be some standards I need people need some help and training and the other thing I don't really understand is we've been working on this for a long, long time can't we look at other cities that have had some programs that have worked, and at least try them out. I'm not actually sure what wrap around services mean, but I do know that Catholic charities and some of the other providers do try to provide support for homeless before people who are homeless. So I'm not sure what the disconnect there is, but I just want to I'm sorry to interrupt here I just want to ask you to please wrap up your comments thank you. All right, our last speaker today will be Rena Nicole. We can hear you. You can. Sorry. All right, so. Okay, I can't do anything with my phone but you can hear me correct. We can hear you. So, I've been observing this entire conversation. And I think I maybe heard the comments of one person who is actually or has actually been homeless. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm hearing. I'm also just hearing in the tone of the voices that I'm listening to that the majority of the people who have concerns or complaints are homeowners who are white. So there is an element of privilege that those who have been making comments don't see past. So that's kind of a big part of what the problem is. My name is Rena Nicole. I'm 41 years old. I'm a person of color. My family has lived in Sonoma County since the 30s, maybe even longer. And with the ancestral trauma that my family has suffered being here in Sonoma County. You know, it's difficult. You say not you, but whoever was saying or maybe they could go pick breaks or maybe they could whatever it's like, you know, there are people who want to do those things and that's what they do for the living. The people who are homeless, like myself, are people who are just or have been lost. So very brief explanation of how I ended up here. If you look me up on Google, and you type in the Rena Nicole show, you will find me on YouTube. I had a television show that I was producing in the East Bay on public television KCMC, and I was doing really well. And so that you will probably see is me interviewing Miguel Elliott, who is the founder of Living Earth Structures, who did an interview with me at ISIS Oasis in Geyserville, California. You can watch the video to get more information about that. But that he is a resource for housing. I have a lot of ideas that I that I've actually been planning out. So you all know, as of today I just received a vote for interview for the leap board. The leap board is, I have to write it down. Just don't know where I'm going to put the paper lived experience advisory. Experiences advisory planning. So I'll be having that interview shortly. And I am applying for a chair position. So, um, the long and short of it, I was working with a producer who drugged me and raped me. I got pregnant from that rate. I was mortified. I went to Planned Parenthood and had an abortion. My husband works for Kaiser. So the way I found out I was pregnant was because he was complaining about the way I was smelling. I'm so I'm really sorry to interrupt, but we do need to wrap up and I am happy to talk with you offline I can provide you my email I can provide you my direct line and I'm, I'm happy to talk further with you I'm happy to know that you're going to be part of that. I know that focus strategies is working with that committee of the continuum of care as part of our stakeholder engagement process. I think that was our last speaker right that is correct. Okay, great. So, we have just made it through our three questions and received your comments whether you raised your hand or posted those in the chat and I just want to thank everybody for participating. I want to remind you that we have a survey that's open until June 1 and that's specifically related to the strategic plan and the questions that were raised this evening so if you haven't already taken the survey please do so. If you have questions concerns or comments outside of the scope of the strategic plan related to homelessness direct those to homeless at src.org and Sasha, or myself will follow up with you. Before we wrap up the meeting I just wanted to check in with our focus strategies team and see if there's anything else you wanted to add. I think so Kelly thank you so much for everyone who is participating and we, we will be in touch and working with the city on next steps with the plan and future opportunities to contribute. And I'll just add that we will be sharing information with the community as the draft plan becomes available for for public review so stay tuned on that and with that I think we're going to wrap up the meeting thanks again everybody have a good evening.


So, consequences of the Industrial Revolution for democratization and also for mass democratization, I'm sorry, for mass democratization and also imperialism. So, British and Germany, I somehow, somehow I repeated myself. Okay. Now, I want to talk about the 20th century. So what happens in the 20th century? First half of the 20th century, World War I, Great Depression, World War II. This is a period in which we see the phenomenal expansion of the growth of the British government. So, the government, with respect to its interventions into markets, interventions into the economy, grew phenomenally. Okay. And the markets, I'm sorry, the state steps into the economy, intervenes into markets, starts managing the economy and provides expanded social welfare. And all throughout World War I, state activity in markets, economic activity, intervention into markets, expand even further. Of course, war efforts mean that states expand, right? Because states, it is the state which consumes a lot of goods and services. So, in times of war, don't be offended by this. I'm going to remind you something you've learned a few years ago. No worries. Just try to remember, aggregate demand is equal to all kinds of expenditures. Do we remember what kind of expenditures these were? Okay. Government expenditures. Consumption expenditures. Investment expenditures. And net exports. Okay. When you look at this, this equation or equality, aggregate demand or aggregate expenditure is a function of all these. The role of government here is of utmost importance. In wartime economy, the government spends a lot on, for example, ammunitions. So military expenditures increase phenomenally. And there was also in the British case, nationalization, which is the opposite of what we witness in the contemporary period, which is privatization. So, the opposite of privatization is nationalization or collectivization. So, railroads become collectivized. What used to be private companies come under state ownership. The state purchases them. So, G increases. The state also purchases, confiscates, and also simply buys mines, all kinds of minerals and others. The state also purchases shipping industries. What used to be privately owned, now it becomes part of the state. All of these mean that we have expanding G in the economy, in wartime periods. The state not only does that, but also sets prices of foodstuffs. So, price setting, or sets price ceilings. So, price of foodstuffs, of bread, salt, cannot exceed this much. The state also says you cannot send that much capital, excuse me, outward. So, I wanna keep exports of capital. Okay, so I wanna keep them inside my country. So, I wanna use your resources. So, all kinds of war efforts mean that the G as a share of all income increased. So, G as a share of GDP increases. What is GDP, ladies and gentlemen? Thank you very much. But what does it stand for? Gross domestic product. Very good. So, it's the value, not only production, but also the value of all goods and services produced in the economy in a given year. Okay, all value of all goods and services produced in an economy in a given year. And the share of G in that gives you the role of the government, or the size of the government. So, how much does the state intervene into this GDP? How much of the GDP is in fact purchased by the state? So, G as a share of GDP, G as a share of all income or all output, gives you how much does the state expend, like spend as a share of all value, I mean, the value of all goods and services produced in that economy in a given year. So, when you look at the figures here, oh, I'm sorry, I had these figures. When you look at the figures here for Britain, by about 1870s, the British government was spending less than 10%, so about, I mean, less than one tenth of all goods and services produced in Britain in that year, 1870s, end of 19th century, right before the emergence of the Bell Epoch. And you always see the average is about that, I mean, one percentage point higher than that. World War I, right before World War I, the British state spends less than 13% of all goods and services produced in Britain in that year. Let's look at end of World War I with all these collectivization, nationalization, war effort and all that. The British state starts spending on all these goods and services by more than a quarter. So, more than a quarter of all goods and services produced in the British economy purchased by the government. As you can see, there is a phenomenal rise in the size of the British government. And this is way much higher than the OECD average. OECD stands for the organization, for the OECD stands for the organization for, and very good, economic cooperation and development. A child of the post-World War II world emerges in 1960s. First emerges as OEEC, then rebirth reborn as OECD in 1961. Club of the Rich, it's the Club of Advanced Industrialized Countries. The five cases, which we shall be focusing throughout this term are all members of the OECD, founding members of the OECD. So, when you look at the OECD, the advanced industrialized countries, the average is less than 19%, but Britain is doing, Britain is expanding the size of the British government in the economy is massive. Compare that to Germany, compare that to France. So, these are big, big spenders, and also Italy, yeah. Big spenders in the economy, so large states. So, this means that we have an expanding, I really ruined the surprise element, but anyway. So, expansion of the British government, the size of the government, intervention, or intervening into the economy. And there is always tensions between free markets, on the one hand the ideology of free markets, and the ideology of interventionism. So, there's always tension in Britain with respect to these. Should we go the laissez-faire way? Our founding father, or one of the founding father of British laissez-faire is Adam Smith. Should we go along Smithian way? Or should we go along some other way? Then a new founding father will emerge, Lord John Maynard Keynes, starting writing in the 1930s. So, this period right before World War II, right before World War II, between 1910s and 1940s. Not about 30 years. No clear consensus. Yes, there is collectivization. The state expands, but ideology-wise, there is no consensus, okay? One consensus emerges. A certain specific consensus emerges only after mass devastation during or through World War II. World War II, common misery, poverty, destitution. This is the Reichstag. I know this is Germany, but I'll show you some pictures of Britain. But imagine the devastation here. The Reichstag, 1945, end of World War II. Frankfurt, Ale, Berlin, in Berlin, 1945. Shambles, Brandenburg Gate in the contemporary period. I think that photo was taken back in the mid-1990s. Look at what happens here. This is Untedain Linden, this way. Just imagine that big boulevard. And look at what it's full of. Untedain Linden, that way. And 1945, 50 years later, 50 years ago. No rooftops. All bombarded. So Berlin was plastered, almost flat. Berlin Cathedral. Anyone to Berlin, been in Berlin? So it's a very modern-looking city in which there is constant construction. There's cranes everywhere, right? So it's under construction. It's a city which has been under construction as far as I remember. And I've first been to Berlin back in the 1990s. Berlin was under construction back then. It's still under construction day by day, minute by minute. Look at Rotterdam. Do you see anything? Anyone been to Kern, Cologne? You'll remember the dorm, the cathedral. It was almost the only building in the city, in Kern, in Cologne, which wasn't bombarded. And I asked, oh, everyone believes in God. That's why it wasn't bombarded. But that wasn't the answer. The cathedral, which had been built for years, for decades, centuries ago, was not bombarded because the Allied powers used it as a telecommunications tool, the spires. So they really used it for wartime effort. That's why it wasn't bombarded. So, London, 1940. And this is not the end of it, though, 1940, just the beginning where the raids were going on. All shattered, common misery, devastation. So what do we do? Who takes responsibility? What do we do? What does one do? Whom do we call for help? Whom do we call for help? We call the state for help. So massive expansion continuing well into the form of the 1940s, starting of World War II, end of World War II, 1960s. So massive expansion of the British state.  Post-war settlement, but how do we settle? On what grounds do we settle? Remember, early part of the 20th century was a period of should we go right or should we march left? Should we go the laissez faire way or should we go the collectivist way? Should the state intervene into the economy massively or should the state withdraw from economic activity? But there was some inclination towards expanding the state sector because of the First World War, of course. So states had to intervene, but if and when World War II happened, so there was kind, there emerged a consensus in which or after which there was a more or less clean consensus on the expanded role of government. So the dream of prosperity, the dream of reconstruction, the dream of development could only be made possible through the very visible hand of the state. Not the invisible hand, like Smith says, but the visible hand of the state. So the state had to intervene. And the dream, this dream after common misery, this dream of reconstruction, this dream of prosperity was more important than ideology. Forget about ideology. Whatever works, let it work, let it operate. So expanded role of the government, post-war settlement on the collectivist consensus where the government rebuilds, reconstructs, and also reconciles. Reconciles who? Reconciles labor, isn't tight, and business, okay? The state is there as a mediator of conflict, of social conflict. So in that sense, it is a consensus. In that sense, it reconciles class-based functional interests, class-based actors. So the method was economic governance and also social welfare. The left says, I'm not asking for a revolution, a socialist revolution, I'm not going for it. And business says, okay, you state, you can build, reconstruct, and we can live side by side, we can coexist. I'm not saying I will be taking, I will be the prima donna on the stage. You can also work through for reconstruction, for development. And also, I also acknowledge you, both parties left and right, and labor and capital, business and working masses, they also concede to the state by saying, okay, you state, we acknowledge that you are the mediator here, okay? So the state really assumes new roles, new functions, which it hadn't in the past. Remember the absolute estates 500 years ago? That they were territorial, that they were characterized by strong bureaucracy. This doesn't look at what the state means now, okay? So the 20th century is the century of phenomenal expansion of the state. Yes, it is the century of mass enfranchisement, mass democratization, but it's also the era of the state, especially in what's called the golden age of capitalism, which is sometimes referred to as the embedded liberalism, the period of embedded liberalism. It's liberalism because we work or states work through markets. It's embedded because it's embedded socially and culturally that everyone agrees on the collectivist consensus, okay? So that's it for this period. The role of the state expands phenomenally under the Keynesian ideals or ideology, and the state assumes a massive role with a massive, going through a massive expansion. Britain from 30%, 19, I mean, right before World War II, 1970, almost 40%, 1980, 45% of British GDP is purchased by the British government, almost half of all goods and services produced in that country is purchased by the government. So imagine the role of the state intervening into British markets. Massive, and Britain is no exception. As you can see, 1930s, 1913, I'm sorry, pre-World War I, about 13%, jumping to about 19% and the World War I. Right before World War II, after Great Depression, the state responds across the OECD about 23, 24%, 1960, 28% passes a threshold of a quarter. 1970, 33% almost. So one third of all goods and services produced across the OECD or in the OECD or within the OECD are purchased by governments. Almost 40% across the OECD, 39%, 38.7%, 39% of all GDP. And it's continuing. It's also interesting. It's even higher now, but all this unravels with the onset of the conservative revolution that starts in Britain, 1979, that continues with the other side of the Atlantic, with Reagan in the U.S., but not only there, but also on the continent, Helmut Kohl, CDU, CDU. Christian Democrats come to power. Felipe Gonzales, Suarez in the Iberian Peninsula, Mitterrand comes to power socialist, but by about 1983, he normally goes left, then makes a U-turn, 1983, comes to power 1981, but makes a U-turn. So the conservative revolution, haunting all Europe. So this period, how did it come about in Britain? What was the politics like? This period was one of turmoil, economic downturn, industrial strife, the winter of 1978 and 79. We remember it as the winter of discontent, workers of all industries, mining and all that, everyone taking up to the streets, everyone says enough is enough, we want to enjoy prosperity, there is mass unemployment, and there is also political stagnation, a lot of tensions, neither the conservative Heath government nor the Labour Callaghan government managed to bring about, bring back prosperity. So what to do about it? And then emerges, or there emerges the Iron Lady. Margaret Thatcher comes to power who personally believed that it was the collectivist dogma, collectivist ideology that undermined, ruined British economy. So it was the previous Keynesian ideas of strong states, heavy states, clumsy states that really undid, undue, I'm sorry, that really undue prosperity, wealth and stability. And her response was, or her answer to this was that we need to cut taxes, we need to reduce social services and we need to stimulate competition. So in order to jump start the economy, roll back the state, make room for firms, yes, do enough of a regulation, but do not compete with the private sector, sell crowns assets, crowns jewels, crush unions, so that the costed advantages of firms emerge and stimulate all kinds of competitive forces. So this was the name of the game back in the early 1980s and it, I mean, the conservative revolution on the Thatcher continues well into, Well, Thatcher remained in power for more than, for about 12 years, for about 11, 12 years. And when we look back at Thatcherism, we see, we remember strong leadership, she was called the Iron Lady. We remember new economic ideas, the old passe economic ideas of, what was this guy's name? John Maynard, John Maynard Keynes, all passe, we don't wanna remember it, and the new culture, which she wanted to call, or she wished to call, enterprise culture, which was all about individual responsibility, individual commitment to family, commitment to thrift, saving, okay? Commitment to the entrepreneurial spirit, roll back the state, let markets work, let firms get stronger, and me and myself, I am responsible for myself, and she declares, I remember very vividly, she says, there is no such thing as society, there are individuals. So the idea of individualism, which really, of course, is one of the backbones of Britishness, so reinventing this culture of individualism, this culture of entrepreneurial spirit, so that we reinvent British society. Forget about John Maynard Keynes' collectivist ideas, let's adopt our own ideas, re-adopt our own ideas, and the inspiration comes from Friedrich von Hayek and others, and Milton Friedman, so monetarism and all that, we'll talk about this in more detail next class. 1990s continue under conservative governments, then something happens, another milestone, towards the end of the 1990s, yes, the conservative revolution is still there, but it is losing some steam, there are new backlashes to neoliberalism, and a group of guys reinvent the left, and they call it the third way. Blair and Brown offers a new alternative to thatcherism on the one hand, and old labor's collectivist ideas on the other. So we go neither the thatcherite way nor the old labor way, we go a third way, and in Germany, another idea, I mean a similar idea under the Schroder government came or emerged as the Neue Mitte, the new middle, okay? So the idea of a third wave or a third way of doing things, we don't want to opt for the conservative way, we don't want to opt for the old style, excuse me, collectivist way, we do a new, we build a new ideology, and Blair, followed by Brown, they reject interest-based politics. Normally in the British party system, labor would be, I mean like working classes, working masses would be voting for labor governments or labor party, and business would be favoring conservatives when they are before the polls. So Blair and Brown, they were set to expand their class base, so let's not restrict or limit ourselves to working masses, let's also start exchanging ideas with business or pro-business groups. So the government really gets votes across the socioeconomic political spectrum. So they really, they started rejecting their ties, their filial ties, their brotherly and sisterly ties with the unions, and they really emphasized partnerships with business, not only these, but also they opted for a conditional approach to welfare benefits. Yes, you may receive welfare only on the condition that you search for work or you continue to retrain yourself. You will be entitled to unemployment benefits if and when you're unemployed, if you're when you're fired. Yes, you will be entitled to these, but there are conditions that you need to search for work that you also search for new work, but you also retrain yourself. So the idea was to activate the labor force. So I'm not giving you unemployment insurance, unemployment benefits as a passive benefit. I want to bring you back to the labor force by providing you incentives okay, here is the benefit, but in return I want to make sure that you continue searching for work, that you continue producing for my economy, okay? So a conditional approach to welfare benefits or welfare approaches and leadership in Europe. So Thatcher had always been much reserved when it came to the European Union and the European Union started to expand back in the 1997, 1990s and Blair came to power and said, hey, we're not as reserved anymore. So we want to shake hands with Europe, with the European Union. In fact, we have lots to contribute to modern day Europe. A leadership role in Europe plus a new idea that had always been lingering, the idea of devolution. So devolving more powers to, or away from the core. Okay, I'm not talking about federalism, we're not talking about federalism, no. The F word was a touchy word all throughout 1990s and early 2000s. We're not going the federal way but we're devolving some powers to the Scottish Parliament. We're devolving some powers to Wales and Northern Ireland. So we're giving some powers, giving away some of the powers without really undermining our unitary conception of the state. Then comes 9-11. There emerged this special relationship with the US which really undermined a trust in the British government, in the running British government of the late 1990s and early 2000s. There was a huge disenchantment. And the criticism was that the Blair and Brown governments really overstretched, over committed, above and beyond what they could do. In international relations theory, we sometimes refer to this phenomenon as the expectation credibility rift. You expect as a government, you expect to do a lot but you're not credible enough. You cannot deliver. So there was an over stretch in the eyes of many. There was a lot of criticism, harsh criticism against the Blair governments which was followed by four, the Brown governments. So Britain overly committed beyond its reach, beyond its control. And many argue that it is this over stretch going in beyond what was possible. That was responsible for the 7-7 attacks, that there was an explosion in London, that, I mean a terrorist attack, or a series of explosions in London, that all of these policies have overstretched, promising too much beyond what you could do, what you could deliver. All these policies were responsible for, for all these security risks and security problems. Then comes the conservative governments after the onset of the Great Recession, 2008, 2009, 2010. Conservative governments come to power. David Cameron gets elected and re-elected almost by accident in the most recent elections. He confessed that he didn't even himself expect to win. And he had promised a referendum on whether to stay, whether to remain in the EU or not, that there was also the Scottish referendum. So this was a period of, again, some ups and downs, some upsetting events. And we're now talking about the Brexit, whether it's no longer, it seems, a question of whether or not, despite the 48 percent, 48 percent, 48. something percent, the will of the, almost the other 50 percent, that we're now talking about the terms of the exit, which is kind of interesting to observe.   But politics is, it has ramifications, political, economic, cultural, societal, social, for all of our daily lives. And beyond the ordinary British citizen, many were joking in the papers or they were op-eds during, on route to the referendum that other citizens or citizens of other countries, they said, oh, we want to share the vote. We want to have a stay in the vote. So because it also concerns us, concerns everyone. So we'll convene Friday. We're not running the quiz this time, but we'll have the quiz next week, next Friday, but I'll see you on Friday. Thank you.


so you two team keep it clean good morning uh happy tuesday or really whenever you're watching this because you could be watching this on another day but good morning man i hope all y'all are doing good uh woke up this morning it's an extra extra good move man um just grateful for we understand the circumstances everybody's circumstances are different but um we still gotta find ways to uh be grateful and to rejoice uh even though things are uh they they're pretty wild outside pretty wild around the world really man um but just try to find things to be happy about man um even though i know sometimes it can be tough but it is doable man but anyway um yesterday we uh the ravens they had i'm gonna be saying we like i'm part of ravens or something but yesterday the ravens they had a press conference that featured uh mark andrews and we talked about him yesterday now he said he wants to be the best tight end he said he wants to he said he's not there yet but he said he's uh been working on his blocking and um he's just really trying to improve his game and just take it to another level he talked about lamar jackson how lamar still the same guy even though he's an MVP and getting all this recognition and whatnot and he just talked about some of the other tight ends in the room and how they all just trying to get better but somebody else um that spoke yesterday was ronnie stanley and ronnie stanley it's so crazy sometimes um when you hear ronnie stanley because he's obviously this big huge massive guy but he's so soft-spoken he's so soft-spoken and just he talks so so so gently and uh and it's like oh you just sometimes you wouldn't expect that but um he obviously handled his business uh when he's on the field uh and he talked about that um he talked about just trying to continue to get better uh and he said last last year was obviously a really good year for him didn't give up a sec um only allowed i think six pressures or a year something like that there's some crazy low number um but he really and he's been doing it every year but he really established himself like oh wow okay let's do this real deal even though and it's not taking away anything from him because both both go hand in hand but i feel like both he makes lemar jackson better and lemar jackson makes him better and really the whole offensive line because of his how he can escape past rushes how he can escape people coming after so that kind of uh that that gives those guys a break because if they let somebody do and lemar makes a miss they're like oh yes it's not going on my stat sheet let's go even though it's still going this stat sheet has a pressure allowed but anyway ronnie stanley is still good and it'd be better to have a ronnie stanley than to not have a ronnie stanley um so he talked about the situation that is upon us with ronnie stanley and he has been one of the biggest names on the ravens that is time and what that time is is contract time and he talked about how his agent in the ravens they're still in contract talks they are still in contract talks so they are still trying to get something done and they have all year to do it they have all they they can come up with a deal at anytime uh during before the season starts they can come up with a deal anytime during the season they don't have any uh time limit because say for instance if he was on the franchise tag if they had franchised if his contract had had ran ran out and they franchise tagged them then they would have had until i think the deadline was like july 14 something like that and then after that you can't come to an agreement anymore like for instance yannick and godway if he does end up getting traded then he still can't come to a new deal with his new team he got to play on a franchise tag but ronnie stanley he's in the fifth year option of his deal he's in the fifth year of his deal so ravens have literally all year long and they have all off season well not all off season if they do end up franchise tagging him next year they'll have until whatever the franchise tag deadline will be to where they can come up with a new deal but they got they got a while they got time it's my point so but he said he said he's not worried about it he said he ain't worried about it right now um obviously hope something gets done but that's not on his mind but something that what he said was on his mind was opting out and sometimes i think about it like man um ravens didn't suffer any huge blows when it came to the opt outs that they had um teams like the patriots they suffered like the most and the biggest blows but the ravens they didn't really get hit too hard with the opt outs they just had the anthony thomas who i like i said i i didn't think he was gonna make the team that's again no offense to him anything like that and then there's andre smith who he might have made the team but he yeah he probably would have made the team just has a backup obviously but the ravens didn't suffer any huge blows to like any big time starters anything like that um so they came out pretty good they came out pretty clean to keep it clean but with that being said ronnie stanley said he's seriously considered opting out um and i um i didn't really think too much of it because i know i've heard some other players say that they considered opting out and whatnot but then uh barstool banks he had actually tweeted out that he heard through the great vine and whatnot that um ronnie stanley was actually seriously considering uh sitting out this season and he said that the ravens uh they had been looking at contingency plans so they had been looking at like backup options for okay if ronnie stanley is out what are we gonna do he said they had been looking at that um so that that certainly would have been something in barstool banks i'm not sure if a lot of y'all familiar with him but he recently well i mean it's been offseason so it ain't really been too much to talk about but um when he tweets out something about the ravens he's pretty spot on everything that i've ever seen him tweet about the ravens that's like a scoop or inside of news or something like that he's been spot on the most recent thing he tweeted obviously but well before the ronnie stanley thing the most recent thing he tweeted before that uh was about the raven schedule he tweeted out the raven schedule hours before it was officially dropped uh when all these leaks were coming out and stuff some people had a right some people had it wrong but he tweeted out the raven schedule and it was spot on spot on prime time games uh all of that stuff spot on preseason when we did have a preseason but everything was on point another thing another story that he broke was the uh the marcus peters trade he talked about it before anybody else talked about it and obviously we got marcus peters so um he's spot on with this stuff man but so with that whole ronnie stanley that would have certainly been something man that would have certainly been something and uh again we we obviously don't have to think about this too much but it's always interesting to uh think about what the possibilities could have been because if the ravens didn't have ronnie stanley this year and he opted out then what would they have done at left tackle you could have had one of the young guys you could have got somebody via trade you could have tried for your agency but you would have had to figure that out but depending on how things went uh i think that could have actually made the ravens end up feeling like oh okay you know what well ronnie stanley thank you but we're gonna move on and i think when he did come back next year i think that could have led the ravens to actually trade him and acquire some compensation because with ronnie stanley if i don't expect it to happen but if he was to be traded no if if they were to uh put him up like on the trade block or whatever sorry i've been playing mad and i was playing it all night last night but um if they were to uh trade him people would they would get plenty of offers right away right away plenty of offers and they will get some good offers too like and there would be no hesitation it wouldn't be no trend williams type of thing but that's that situation was just ugly period but it wouldn't be that type of thing so they would be able to trade him and it yeah they they would get first round picks maybe even multiple first round picks but they would get multiple high picks because ronnie stanley is nice but that's also the reason why you got to feel like they're gonna come to some type of agreement something and it's probably gonna take a little minute now it's probably gonna take a little minute because of just the situation and again the possibility of next year's salary cap makes this whole thing that much harder with the possibility of it dropping down by about 25 mil again it's not guaranteed it just all depends on how revenue does with the nfl this year but with ronnie stanley um i i know they they they say they in contract talks right now they say they've been in contract talks they've been communication and whatnot but i don't know man i don't know i feel like the ravens are like 1000 they want to keep ronnie stanley and they all in on ronnie stanley and they like hey we want him to be a raven we want to get this done because again lamar jackson with the ronnie stanley is a is much better than a lamar jackson without a ronnie stanley well i mean we haven't seen it yet but you you you want to like when you have homegrown talent and like when your homegrown talent is really talented you want to do what you can to keep them and i know you can't keep everybody and that's the same thing we've been saying for so so long because it's true and it's unfortunate because that's just the part of the business where just things can get a little ugly but you you you really want to try to keep that especially that homegrown talent man you really do because it's special it's special and ravens as we know with their homegrown talent man they can be something serious i mean we obviously look at the air reeds and the ray luisas um the ray rices before everything obviously uh jamal luis for long enough um the tide heaps the pitas uh i mean it's it's plenty more we could go down the list on man see pernell mcfee he was like man the grass really ain't green on other side at pernell mcfee uh he ended up going to the uh bears and the residents he was like oh no it's uh i need to go back to the ball but um and it's it's plenty more guys too but it's specifically a left tackle obviously jonathan ogden man he did his thing and after jonathan ogden um they left tackle has been they really haven't had that premier guy at left tackle they haven't had that guy consistently hold it down at left tackle they've tried different guys and whatnot and some have lasted a couple years and whatnot but they really haven't had that guy and ronnie stanley for them can be that guy so let's see what happens with him and the ravens man because it's a very it's tricky man it's tricky if it was so cut and dry if it was so black and white then this thing would have been done by now but it's so many different factors that go into the decision making when it comes to contract decisions it's wild man but whatever wild happens whatever comes next will keep y'all updated so team keep it clean i love y'all so much and man i i appreciate y'all like crazy man seriously um thank y'all for being you thank you for rocking with us and i see y'all later on i appreciate y'all and we out