Reprinted with permission from Cedar Mountain Association

Special Alert Board of County Commissioners Hearing September 14 – 6 PM Admin Bldg.

This hearing will be your last chance to address any remaining concerns you have regarding ORA 17-0001, Mr. Poorman’s requested changes to the Kootenai County Ordinances. BUT WAIT… we now have another issue coming before this same hearing. This summer, members of Cedar Mountain Association have monitored Kootenai County Planning Commission workshops and hearings regarding ordinance changes which, for the most part, are routine and helpful to our community.  However, one issue has surfaced which causes us great concern.   Without Notice, Transitional Housing, All Zones?  Kootenai County Community Development Department has requested that a use be added to allow Transitional Group Housing Facilities conditionally permitted in the County in virtually all zones. Transitional group housing would accommodate 9 or more people on 3 or more acres. Without notice, at the Planning Commission workshop, a presentation was made, including architectural renderings, showing a village of what was described as 22 insulated and heated sheds on skids, each shed providing sleeping quarters for two people, to serve as transitional shelters for the homeless.  The facility also included plans for communal kitchen and bathroom facilities.  Currently, such a proposal cannot be considered by Kootenai County because there is no use in the ordinance allowing such facilities.  The proposed change to the ordinance, 8.5.135: TRANSITIONAL GROUP HOUSING FACILITIES, if passed, would allow this housing model – as well as others models- to be considered in virtually all zones. Real Concerns, Their Reaction, We Agree Members of the Planning Commission had many real concerns about the transitional housing concept, among them density in zones which are not meant to be densely populated, and the location of such facilities far from services such as medical, mental health, transportation, law enforcement, and jobs.  Their reaction was that such facilities should be located in or near the city, but this same concept has been rejected by the City of Coeur d’Alene for good cause. We agree that the homeless population would be better served in an urban setting. We do not, however, believe that the tiny shed model is the best solution for them. The argument is being made that the CUP process will give the rigorous vetting needed for transitional housing.  You will recall, however, Community Development has time and again told us it does not have enough funds budgeted for vetting or enforcement. Our Research, The Model, Our Concern While we recognize that sheltering the homeless is a vital concern to every community, our research has found that this tiny shed model has not had the success predicted and it is being abandoned in other cities in favor of other models.  Our concern is, this land use category is being pushed beforeKootenai County has formulated any consensus-built county-wide policy to address homelessness. We believe this use would be to dump transitional housing for the homeless in the laps of an unprepared and unconsulted rural and agricultural community. There is no reason to rush to action. A serious review of this change to the ordinance will show that this is not appropriate for the County. Here is a link to a 2016 article regarding this proposal in Coeur d’Alene:  http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/sep/27/tiny-homes-for-the-homeless-proposed-for-coeur-dal/#/0 We need you to attend the upcoming BOCC hearing and speak out on this critical issue.