By Susan Shelley
If you’re a politician trying to get past your next election, few things are more useful than a blue ribbon commission.
It has the appearance of thoughtfulness, gravitas, wisdom, collaboration and action, exactly the way a comedian in a gorilla suit has the appearance of being a gorilla.
There are two main differences between a blue ribbon commission and a comedian in a gorilla suit. The first is that a blue ribbon commission is much more ridiculous. And the second is that it’s much more expensive. You could probably remake “Planet of the Apes” and 15 sequels and still spend less than the taxpayers will pay for the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Homelessness.
“The Blue Ribbon Commission was charged with taking a hard look at the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority and coming up with a new governance model for L.A. County homeless services,” said L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger after the Board of Supervisors cheerfully approved a motion by Barger and Supervisor Hilda Solis to accept the commission’s seven recommendations.
The top recommendation of the panel was to create a new bureaucracy without eliminating any of the existing bureaucracies.
Yes, it’s a new “framework” for a new “governance system” that will include a new county entity to “serve as a centralized housing acquisition unit that houses people experiencing homelessness and connects them to support services.”
But wait, you may be thinking. What happened to all the other government agencies and nonprofits funded with tax dollars? Weren’t they supposed to be housing people and connecting them to support services? And if they’re not doing it, shouldn’t we stop funding them and try something else?
Some people think so. One of them is independent candidate for governor Michael Shellenberger, who has proposed a new state agency, Cal-Psych, to replace the duplicative, wasteful, ineffective, 58-county mess that is spending billions of dollars and not making anything better.
Of course, that would cut off the funding that keeps all the moist-eyed executives current on their car payments.
So here in L.A. County, we’re going to have a new “czar” of homelessness to “revamp” the organizational chart.
This new entity will take awhile to get up to speed. Studies will be needed, and consultants will have to calculate the office space that will be required. Then there’s staffing and training, and important details such as logo design. Finally, when the new entity is ready, it will take on its new challenge, as described in the Board of Supervisors’ motion: “convene work groups,” “convene stakeholders,” “develop goals, policy and implementation plans” and “lead in the creation of regional committees.”
What about the city-county joint powers authority currently tasked with all of this, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority? Is it abolished?
Don’t be silly. People have car payments.
No, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Homelessness recommends “streamlining” LAHSA, which turns out to mean relieving it of the responsibility for “providing direct services.” Your tax dollars will pay for the agency to take your tax dollars.
The Blue Ribbon Commission recommends that the county “support efforts to establish an executive-level action team to drive urgently needed reforms, discuss issues of common interest, and facilitate data development and sharing.” Naturally, these jobs will have to pay very high salaries to attract the very best people in the fields of driving, discussing and facilitating.
So if you happen to own a BMW dealership, you may see some benefit from the report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Homelessness. Otherwise, the only people who benefit are the denizens of the homeless-industrial complex, who have been spared from the threat of losing their phony-baloney jobs and sweetheart contracts, and the politicians who can respond to questions about the persistent tragedy on our streets by pointing harumphingly to the commission’s report until they are safely past their next election.
What California really needs is a waiver from what’s known as the IMD exclusion — a provision of a 1965 law that blocks federal matching funds from reimbursing the state for mental health care in facilities with more than 16 beds. The governor could ask for the waiver. Ask him why he hasn’t.
Write to Susan at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley.
This column was originally published by the Southern California News Group.