Super 8 Motel Supportive Housing Project Receives $19 Million Dollars In State Funding | Page 2

The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara will receive almost $19 million to acquire and rehabilitate the 60-unit Super 8 Motel in Old Town Goleta into permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness, chronic homelessness and homeless youth or youth at risk of homelessness. The project located at 6021 Hollister Avenue will provide on-site wrap-around supportive services and ample space for indoor and outdoor community services.

The funding, announced on April 13, 2022, by Governor Gavin Newsom, is a part of $70 million in State awards for six new Homekey projects throughout California. When fully operational, the projects will provide 232 housing units for people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.

City of Goleta Mayor Paula Perotte said, “We are thrilled and grateful to hear the great news! This is the culmination of what has been a massive effort on the part of the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara to secure this much needed State funding with assistance from the County and the City of Goleta. We are pleased to serve as a financial contributor and supporter of this exemplary project. This proposed development will play a big part locally to help address the human and societal problem of people experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness.”

John Polanskey, the Director of Housing Development for the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara said, “The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara values its partnership with the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara in our joint efforts to increase the availability of permanent supportive housing for our most vulnerable residents. The proposed conversion of the Super 8 in Goleta to serve this purpose is our latest effort. The $18,958,701 from the State of California, in addition to the funding committed by the City of Goleta and County of Santa Barbara, will help make the Super 8 conversion a reality.”

The Super 8 housing development project is proposed to include 59 permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness. One unit will house an onsite property manager, plus five existing units will be converted to community space in which a robust offering of services will be provided.

This state funding includes rental subsidy and operating costs. Generous additional funding has been reserved for this development by the County of Santa Barbara and City of Goleta. Under recent State law (AB 140 and AB 2162), supportive housing projects funded through the Homekey program are automatically deemed consistent and in conformity with local General Plan and zoning requirements and allowed by right as a permitted use.

An informational meeting to be held at the Super 8 location is in the works and expected to take place next month. We will send out details to the community as soon as they are finalized.

Ok Sac well I agree with you there - I wasn't expecting you to say we should lock drug users up but you've proven me wrong many times.

@SAC and Voice - I think you guys might be confusing (or I'm not being totally clear) what I personally think we should do (which is in agreement with both of you) and what is LEGALLY enforceable given the fundamental personal liberty foundations of our country and existing rulings / precedent / law. We used to put many people into mental institutions and compel treatment, for example. We closed those, no, not because of "Ronald Reagan" (so tired of hearing this lie repeated, not because I'm a Reagan fan - I am NOT - but because it's just not true) but because of numerous lawsuits filed by organizations including the ACLU, subsequent court rulings, and laws like Lantermann Petris Short act (which was a 2/3 Democrat sponsored and written bill). Subsequent rulings after LPS made it even harder to institutionalize or treat anyone. I think we need a frank discussion of repeal of this act and reversal of these judicial rulings. Regardless, it realistically seems like we might need to massively expand police forces with task teams dedicated to doing nothing but nicely rousting homeless people 24/7 from camping publicly or doing drugs publicly because otherwise I don't see how you keep them off the streets.

SBTOWNIE - giving them the option of treatment vs jail once convicted of an offense isn't really compelling them into treatment. They already use this in our courts today. Young offenders or first time drug offenders are often given the choice. Now, we just need to apply that to the homeless population.

Yeah, Voice, I agree with you... except that you cannot compel people into confinement or treatment. We used to do that, remember? And we had to stop because of the ACLU and "constitutionality."

VOICE (and SBTOWNIE) - I may have glanced over something.... are you saying the only 4 choices for someone convicted of public intoxication or camping, etc, should be jail, rehab, mental health treatment or forced into a bunk house? OK, so no.... #4 (bunk house) can't happen. For one, someone convicted of public camping may not need mental health counseling or rehab. So, they can choose between jail and a bunk house? What's the difference? No, I agree with enforcing existing laws, but not with a blanket 4 choice system like this. Sorry, I must have misread that. What about paying the fine or community service? Will these penalties no longer be offered to homeless convicts?

VOICE - I say this with reserved caution, but I agree 100% with you. We need to enforce the laws and increase patrols around the existing camps until we get them moved out and cleaned up. We can't ignore the reality of these camps any longer. We also need to continue to provide help for those who need it, otherwise nothing changes. Enforce existing laws and provide help to those willing to accept it. The only one this will really hurt are the gutter punk "urban travelers." Hopefully, taking a hard line approach like this will deter them from our city!

SBTownie, continuing to allow drug addicts to wallow in their own filth and head towards an early grave is not a humane approach. Nor can it be limited to just a "camp" as they'll constantly be venturing out to procure funds (and not legally through a job) for their next fix. The solution is rather simple: First establish bunk houses with cots/beds, personal lockers, and shower facilities - no drugs or alcohol allowed. Then actually enforce existing laws against drug use, public intoxication, camping in public, littering, defecating/urinating in public and provide violators with a choice 1) drug rehabilitation 2) mental health treatment 3) bunk house 4) jail. If they truly want to not be part of society that is okay, there is plenty of very rural state and federal land they can go get lost and camp in a law-abiding fashion.

SBTOWNIE - so because they're ODing on our streets, you'd move them to an isolated camp to allow them to do so out of your and the public's view? RUPERT at one point proposed this "mad max camp" as a solution, it's barbaric. But, it seems your plan is more supervised and controlled. So, how would that work? The state would fun the purchase, construction, utilities, police/medical services, cooks, janitors, etc etc just so the homeless are off our streets? Would they have permanent structures to live in or just tents? I'm just thinking logistics here. Your idea is not actually that bad, as long as you are considering the support services and personnel needed for these new "towns." Do we have the money to fund something this massive?

Sac, they're already ODing on the streets or in the bushes. You know this right? OD numbers in the last year are INSANE. Over 100,000 people died of OD last year. In a facility, there could be staff on hand to administer Narcan at a moment's notice, or to equip all the other residents with Narcan so they could administer it as well. And no, I would never advocate locking anyone in. But if they cannot camp on the streets or do drugs on the streets (this has been majorly decriminalized in recent years, reduced to misdemeanors that are not enforced or even ticketed on - please research this if you don't believe me - it has been part of criminal justice reform to not lock people up or punish them for drug use as drug users are seen as victims [and I am not disagreeing many are victims of poor fortune or poor decisions or both]). In some cities like SF, the municipality even is sponsoring safe injection sites where people go to openly do drugs in environments sanctioned, staffed, and paid for by the city. I fail to see how this is different than the concept of dedicated living facilities for the homeless where they will be free to shoot up but will no longer have to be homeless and living on the streets as shelter will be provided.

I'd like to explore this "camp/town" some more. A few questions: 1) Would these camps be guarded/locked? 2) Would the drugs/booze be free? If so, are the taxpayers buying them? If not, what money earning options would be available to the "campers?" 3) Who would monitor these camps and clean the bathrooms, dining areas, living quarters, etc? 4) What medical/police presence would be available? Would there be onsite paramedics? 5) Would they be free to leave the camp at any time? 6) What country do you think we live in?

I'd like to explore this "camp/town" some more. A few questions:

1) Would these camps be guarded/locked? 2) Would the drugs/booze be free? If so, are the taxpayers buying them? If not, what money earning options would be available to the "campers?" 3) Who would monitor these camps and clean the bathrooms, dining areas, living quarters, etc? 4) What medical/police presence would be available? Would there be onsite paramedics? 5) Would they be free to leave the camp at any time? 6) What country do you think we live in?

SBTOWNIE - isn't public drug use and public camping already illegal? And for option #2, a homeless town with all the drugs and alcohol they want? Is that you, RUPERT? Do you really think, with our laws and morals, they would ever build this OD/death camp? How would you keep them in their "town?" Lock them in? If you don't, then they'll be free to roam into neighboring towns to mooch off the locals for drug/booze money. Or... do you provide all the drugs and alcohol free of charge? Lot of questions about your "hobo town," not to mention the morals and legalities involved....

Sac, my personal opinion is make all public drug use and all public camping illegal. You can't camp in parks, on the street, on the beach, etc. Make caltrans or Amtrak clear their private land with emcampments by fining them heavily for allowing it every time something like a fire starts. If you are in a situation where you need to camp and are homeless you have three options - 1) keep moving all the time and hope you don't get caught, 2) enter some type of purpose built shelter system built in very low cost areas of the state where the homeless can do whatever they want - a town for them - provide water, cafeteria, and then they can get drugs or alcohol or whatever they want out in the real world and do them in the camp, too, 3) you enter a different shelter system program because you want psychiatric help or substance abuse help and you enter treatments for these - if you do well and complete a step-up treatment program you can eventually qualify for HOUSING back in the real world instead of out in the middle of nowhere in the desert or the central valley - you can get put into reintegration to society pathway where you will receive support for X number of years assuming you do your part. Granted I think the last program should emphasize family reunification (anywhere in the country) and reintegration into locations where participants in the program actually have a shot at success - this might be lower cost areas of the state. It's probably not going to make sense to get a guy off the streets in Beverly Hills and try to later reintegrate him to live in Beverly Hills because that's just setting the financial burden too high to lead to success long term. Unless he's from Beverly Hills and you can reunite him with family, try to reintegrate him somewhere more realistic.

Hit send to quickly..... how would we do that exactly? Ask every applicant whether or not they use drugs? You're not going to get as much honesty as you think you might. The only way to keep it "clean" is to prohibit (with zero tolerance) intoxication and/or use on the property, like they do at the Rescue Mission.

SBTOWNIE - So, require rehab before allowing them to seek shelter? I don't know if I agree. I understand and agree on banning drug use, possession and dealing and/or being under the influence on the property, but just a blanket ban on any addicts from rooming there seems counter to the whole idea of providing help to those in need.

I'm pretty sure none of the services offered is mandatory though. At the very least we deserve an explanation of that element. The wraparound services MAY include drug treatment, etc. but it's not like they're telling people they have to get sober or they can't come in. That's exactly why people don't want to go into a majority of existing shelter - most programs or rescue missions, etc. require sobriety and don't let you do drugs or drink on the premises. Rose Garden Inn banned use of drugs on the premises. But I pass it nearly every day and I cannot tell you what I saw in the surrounding area. People clearly dealing to each other, coming out of the bushes where it was likely they had just done something they couldn't do on site, etc. The neighbors in the area reported problems with people doing drugs on the streets.

Seems like old town is turning into a dumping grounds for the county, don’t forget the montecito mudslide where all the trash was thrown onto Goleta beach. Just goes to show the county only cares about the wealthy and could careless about the middle/low income people within old town just jam packing it with apartments/projects.

CHIP - who did the Montecito residents elect as their mayor? Just curious.... LOL

I don’t think it’s fair to blame montecito residents for electing better leadership than Goleta residents and being more active in their community than Goleta residents. Remember, the mayor of Goleta, elected by the residents, is”thrilled and grateful” for this project.

Yeah I have to agree.

Any other place within the Santa Barbara county would be nice to expand but old town goleta? Jesus Christ way to use common courtesy for the residents in old town with it being already jammed packed with apartment buildings on South Kellogg and North Kellogg. Can’t wait to see how they handle parking with this one. Maybe you’ll be lucky to find a parking spot 2 miles down near Fairview.

THere is land in Cuyama why don't we buy some and build a facility there... 100 acres. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cuyama/166-Russell-Ranch-Hwy-93254/home/109168802

so the dealers can drop the drugs and pimps can pick up their girls- no kidding

I saw the mention of 232 housing units being available when fully operational but I believe that’s how many housing units will be available throughout all of California through this grant my misunderstanding. Now riddle me this, why old town goleta out of all places? There are already projects on north Kellogg that law enforcement has to deal with all the time. Newly built apartments on south Kellogg Now these as well? I have grown up in old town all my life and have a lot of love for it but it’s sad that it’s starting to sound like a dumpster to me when city council thinks of old town when it comes to places or where to place these types of projects.

HAHA - I'm very familiar with Old Town Goleta, I grew up out here and had many childhood friends there, and now do a lot of business there myself. Looks like you misunderstood the article though. It's not 232 units, only 60 and the building already exists, it's not a new build. Also, there's an existing parking lot on the parcel already so I'm not sure how much this will affect parking, especially since it's pretty likely that not all the new residents even own cars.

You do realize how TINY old town is right? It’s already super dense for the current residents only being able to find parking 3-4 streets away if you’re lucky now imagine a 232 unit building being placed down the street within that environment? Luckily the Mayor Mrs Perrote doesn’t have to deal with the struggles and leaves it to the low income housing people to deal with within old town. I seriously question why we ever get these people into their current positions in the first place. She will definitely not get my vote in the next election.

HAHALOL - I'm betting there's not a ton of demand for parking at a homeless shelter?

Maybe you’re forgetting all the residents within Old Town that have lived here for atleast 20+ years?

What neighborhood? It's next to a tire shop, a McDonalds, a psychic, a few auto body shops and the airport lol.

Housing is a start, but has to be used wisely. Drug addicts and/or the seriously mentally ill will need more than just "putting in a room"... The economic homeless need nothing more. But for the rest, a combination of therapy and treatment is a must. Only then will you be able to avoid the place turning into a jungle...

A recent study by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found that homeless people are 35 times more likely than the general population to suffer a drug or alcohol overdose. They are four times as likely to die of heart disease, 16 times as likely to die in a car accident, 14 times as likely to die of homicide, and eight times as likely to die by suicide. 71% of homeless youth report drug and alcohol addiction

Surprised Goleta mayor Perotte is welcoming this development with such absolutely open arms. Really? Like 0932 said, voters remember what your elected leaders are doing next time when you get to vote. What a shame.

Why do we continue to pretend that drug addicts are “homeless” and that putting a roof over their heads will solve their problems? If we truly want to help these people, we need to start focusing on treating addiction.

LETMEGO - exactly. This plan could be great for those who want and need help. It has the infrastructure already. Problem is, we have those who don't want this in our city, they don't want to have to see the homeless anymore. It's just not realistic to build entire new towns just for the homeless.

We already have permanent supportive housing nearby (in IV, among other places). Yes, it means permanent. People who will most likely never be self supporting live there. We pay workers to work there, look over the residents, help them as needed, and keep them safe. It is not cheap. It probably never will be. However, it is successful. How successful depends on your definition. Likely some of these folks will never be self supporting. However, they are not addicted and aren't dying on the streets. No, we cannot force them to take their meds. They aren't burning down the town trying to stay warm. They aren't necessarily going to do their laundry regularly, even with access to a washer and dryer. They are warm, dry, and fed.

How successful depends on your definition. Likely some of these folks will never be self supporting. However, they are not addicted and aren't dying on the streets. No, we cannot force them to take their meds. They aren't burning down the town trying to stay warm. They aren't necessarily going to do their laundry regularly, even with access to a washer and dryer. They are warm, dry, and fed.

UGh so many typos sorry about that Sac. I don't know if it's autocorrect or what. Hope the gist is clear

Sac - Yeah, I'm not sure what constitutes a "survey" (I'll look into it later sometime) but if it's self reported I think we could venture to say it might be a little higher due to people not being honest with themselves. But regardless - I am a fan of the Mike Shellenberger model. "Shelter first, HOUSING earned." This is much more like housing than shelter. In Shellenberger's model, shelter might be what we typically think of as shelters - not individual hotel rooms with no rooms in prime real estate. Shellenberger says the shelters and those who use them should have no expectation of them being located in prime real estate (EXPENSIVE) areas - LA, SB, SF, etc. We can build brand new humane facilities in places like the central valley or the deserts where land is cheap. Or reappropriate aging facilities exactly like these hotels but IN OTHER, WAY CHEAPER parts of the state (or country for that matter). I think it's crazy to pay to house any majority of our homeless people here, especially as many of them are not locals. Shellenberger advocates for housing - meaning small apartments or private quarters and reintegration to certain locations (for instance, if someone were from SB, getting them back here) - AFTER people have participated in and made progress in drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment plans.

But regardless - I am a fan of the Mike Shellenberger model. "Shelter first, HOUSING earned." This is much more like housing than shelter. In Shellenberger's model, shelter might be what we typically think of as shelters - not individual hotel rooms with no rooms in prime real estate. Shellenberger says the shelters and those who use them should have no expectation of them being located in prime real estate (EXPENSIVE) areas - LA, SB, SF, etc. We can build brand new humane facilities in places like the central valley or the deserts where land is cheap. Or reappropriate aging facilities exactly like these hotels but IN OTHER, WAY CHEAPER parts of the state (or country for that matter). I think it's crazy to pay to house any majority of our homeless people here, especially as many of them are not locals. Shellenberger advocates for housing - meaning small apartments or private quarters and reintegration to certain locations (for instance, if someone were from SB, getting them back here) - AFTER people have participated in and made progress in drug, alcohol, and mental health treatment plans.

03:16 - And "if" my Aunt had two of those whatchamacallits she'd be my Uncle. Add another penny for "if's" and someone could be even richer:)

12:32 And if you had a penny for every time you committed whataboutism, you'd be even richer!

And if you had a penny for every time you committed whataboutism, you'd be even richer!

COAST - how am I living in my own reality when you're the one who posted a made up statistic?

SBTOWNIE - Interesting, thanks for sharing. So, looks like 75% of those surveyed had substance abuse condition, so significantly less than 95%. Even if it were 99% though, as I asked COAST, should we refuse to provide shelter if they don't accept rehab? Just leave those addicts out on the streets to commit more crimes and start more fires? This is the important question. If we don't provide shelter, then what do we do?

SBTOWNIE - Interesting, thanks for sharing. So, looks like 75% of those surveyed had substance abuse condition, so significantly less than 95%.

Even if it were 99% though, as I asked COAST, should we refuse to provide shelter if they don't accept rehab? Just leave those addicts out on the streets to commit more crimes and start more fires?

This is the important question. If we don't provide shelter, then what do we do?

CHIP - "Sac, are you opposed to doing something to tackle the drug addiction crisis?" <------- THAT is whataboutism. I ask a simple question and instead of answering, you deflect and avoid responding. Why are you unable to stay on topic? You suggest that all the homeless are addicts (hard to tell from your comment), and that this won't help them. OK fine, but don't you think this WOULD help some of those homeless people (and families) that are not addicts, but just need some help? My point is, why discourage this project by saying it won't help the addicts, when there are far more than just addicts on our streets. It's just a simple question and now you've turned it into me not wanting to help addicts. Your logic has performed Olympic-level gymnastic feats here and it's still wrong. You've failed to answer my simple question, missed my point, taken it as some sort of argument, then fallaciously flipped it into something else. Bravo!

CHIP - "Sac, are you opposed to doing something to tackle the drug addiction crisis?" <------- THAT is whataboutism.

I ask a simple question and instead of answering, you deflect and avoid responding. Why are you unable to stay on topic? You suggest that all the homeless are addicts (hard to tell from your comment), and that this won't help them. OK fine, but don't you think this WOULD help some of those homeless people (and families) that are not addicts, but just need some help? My point is, why discourage this project by saying it won't help the addicts, when there are far more than just addicts on our streets. It's just a simple question and now you've turned it into me not wanting to help addicts. Your logic has performed Olympic-level gymnastic feats here and it's still wrong. You've failed to answer my simple question, missed my point, taken it as some sort of argument, then fallaciously flipped it into something else. Bravo!

Sac, are you opposed to doing something to tackle the drug addiction crisis? Every time I suggest that we should focus on helping drug addicts, you deflect and say “what about” the people who are homeless but don’t use drugs.

CHIP - that's not "whataboutism," as I'm not changing the subject or deflecting because I have a losing "argument," I am simply just curious whether you think this will help those homeless who aren't addicts. You talk about "these people" and that giving them a roof won't help, so again, would it not help those homeless who aren't addicts? There is a very large, if not equal population of non-addict homeless people, yet many choose to focus their ire on the addicts.

Sac, if I had a nickel for every time you have accused me of “whataboutism” I’d be a rich man

Ok, Sac. I got the data, excerpts, and source. This is from Cal Policy Lab. https://www.capolicylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Health-Conditions-Among-Unsheltered-Adults-in-the-U.S.pdf "The California Policy Lab is a non-partisan research institute based at the University of California." This data comes from surveys of 64,000 homeless people throughout the US, so not specific to CA. And the lingo "sheltered" here means "SHELTERED HOMELESS" not non-homeless sheltered people like us. This analysis explicitly compares and contrasts the differences between SHELTERED HOMELESS and NONSHELTERED homeless. From the report: "this analysis provides the most comprehensive national picture of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the United States to date and compares their experiences with homeless individuals in shelters. " And here is the relevant info: "Unsheltered people continue to experience major and worsening health conditions while homeless. At the time of VI-SPDAT assessment, unsheltered people are more than four times as likely as sheltered people to report a physical health condition (84% vs. 19%), nearly one and a half times as likely to report a mental health condition (78% vs. 50%), more than five times as likely to report a substance abuse condition (75% vs. 13%), and 25 times as likely to report all three conditions concurrently (50% vs. 2%)." "Unsheltered people were more than four times as likely to report that physical health conditions had contributed to loss of housing as sheltered people (46% vs. 11%), nearly three times as likely to report mental health conditions had contributed to loss of housing (50% to 17%), and more than eight times as likely to report that use of drugs or alcohol had contributed to loss of housing (51% vs. 6%). "

And here is the relevant info: "Unsheltered people continue to experience major and worsening health conditions while homeless. At the time of VI-SPDAT assessment, unsheltered people are more than four times as likely as sheltered people to report a physical health condition (84% vs. 19%), nearly one and a half times as likely to report a mental health condition (78% vs. 50%), more than five times as likely to report a substance abuse condition (75% vs. 13%), and 25 times as likely to report all three conditions concurrently (50% vs. 2%)."

"Unsheltered people were more than four times as likely to report that physical health conditions had contributed to loss of housing as sheltered people (46% vs. 11%), nearly three times as likely to report mental health conditions had contributed to loss of housing (50% to 17%), and more than eight times as likely to report that use of drugs or alcohol had contributed to loss of housing (51% vs. 6%). "

Sac it's a good question. The truth is that those who are homeless for reasons other than substance abuse / criminality / uncontrolled mental illness / etc. - think the classical "lost my job" or "left an abusive relationship" or "fell on hard times" - they are the users of the existing infrastructure for the homeless. They are largely sheltered. We have a lot of programs city, county, state, nation-wide for exactly that type of homelessness. The people on the streets are in a different boat. https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/serious-health-conditions-trauma-unsheltered-homeless In my personal opinion this article is written with strong undertones of a political stance I do not agree with (but you probably will), yet despite that there are some interesting tidbits you might be inclined to take seriously, and all the more since the tone of the article is probably something you agree with. Here is one that is very relevant, "In the study, 50% of unsheltered people reported that they suffer from a combination of a physical health condition, a mental health issue and a substance abuse condition — what researchers call a state of trimorbidity. That’s more than 25 times the number of sheltered individuals who reported this (2%)." The author tries to dry a direct causative relationship between these two things, but my strong two cents is that those who do NOT have a substance abuse problem or uncontrolled mental illness are precisely the homeless who end up easily receiving shelter because they are looking for it and open to it and amenable to rules such as curfews and no drugs and drinking, etc.

CHIP - What about those homeless people that aren't addicts? Would this help them?

Now that the Rose Garden in Santa Barbara has now been shown to be not a success, except for the 12 lucky recipients of housing, is there anything of this scale planned for the city of Santa Barbara?

Voted Santa Barbara's Best Website for 10 years in a row, edhat is local news from your community

High Standard, Precision Refinement, Zero Defect

A Manufacturer You Can Trust

To Provide Satisfactory Service

Super 8 Motel Supportive Housing Project Receives $19 Million Dollars in State Funding | Page 2 | Edhat

Featured Products

News & Blog

Best Black Friday MacBook Pro Deals 2021 Ranked by Spending Lab | Business Wire

Restaurant News: Take your taste buds on a trip to Baguus Little Asia in Mountlake Terrace - My Edmonds News

Restaurant inspection update: moldy food, rodents and immediate closures - Iowa Capital Dispatch

Americans Are Eating More Ultra-Processed Foods | Lab Manager

Researchers Find 635 Million-Year-Old Fungi-like Microfossil | Lab Manager

DuraSprayerII cordless fogger/aerosol disinfector : Get Quote, RFQ, Price or Buy

Sponsored Article. How the New MEIKO TopLine Optimizes the Cleaning and Disinfection Process - MedicalExpo e-Magazine

Professional cleaner claims you only need one product to do your whole house as she says people have been ‘sold a lie’

Study finds milk bags are far better for the environment than jugs and cartons

Lab to table: Israeli tech kitchens cook up future of animal-free food | The Times of Israel