1. A long history with the homeless Positive Negative

2. No one has asked………… WHAT DO WE WANT?

3. Appropriate and immediate assistance for former residents of Howard County who are now homeless both individuals and families both situationally and chronically homeless

4. There are major differences Situationally homeless those who have fallen on hard times due to illness, job loss, death in the family, domestic violence, foreclosure, etc. Chronically homeless “usually older, single males with a serious mental illness, alcohol or drug addiction, and/or chronic physical illness.” Some are involved with the criminal justice system. HC Plan to End Homelessness p.6

5. Distributed sheltering alternatives and Day Resource Services throughout ALL parts of the County so ALL communities can model THEIR role in caring for the less fortunate Use of existing housing stock for group home settings providing dignified community integration

6. The needs of the homeless are flexible. In addition to homes and apartments, consider modular or mobile homes as alternatives.

7. So must be our approach. Why are “trailers” okay to educate our children in, yet not acceptable as low or moderate income housing?

8. Provide more sheltering NOW Don’t wait to construct a new building A single site is the least flexible option Increase hotel vouchering, during freezing temperatures – throughout the County – with a variety of owners

9. STOP! Reevaluate actions to date to assure that going forward the bulk of funding directly benefits the individuals being served— NOT the – land owners, – architects, – contractors, – or organizations who ultimately benefit from grants, contracts, etc.

10. Immediate re-examination of the never completed North Laurel/ Savage Small Area Plan begun by DPZ with broad citizen input in 2012 – Our planning for services and physical infrastructure has been frozen – Yet this and other projects are proceeding without review – All of the land transactions involved appear to be the work of a single land use attorney with interconnected clients

11. Closer examination of use of fee-in-lieu-of for provision of moderate and low income units – Current system seems to be promoting greater concentrations of moderate and low income housing in just a few parts of the County – Has a negative impact on schools (>%FARM) – Has a negative impact on quality of life for all

12. Closer examination of use of fee-in-lieu-of for provision of moderate and low income units – Low cost Fee- In -Lieu is NOT comparable to the cost of providing a living unit and has led to complex “bargaining” for the MIHUs – How are the fees used? Administrative costs, land acquisition at above market rates, resettling mobile home park residents, etc. or actual homes?

13. Let us assist you and the Community Policing Liason to address enforcement of some relevant rules re: panhandling, vagrancy, loitering, prostitution, camping etc.?

14. WE WANT Clarification on numerous unanswered questions resulting from the community not being kept in the loop – Is THIS the right strategy for Howard County? – Is THIS the right place, given Route One revitalization plans? – Please refer to the summary charts of questions to guide your presentations to us