I watched Monday night's public hearing on the IFC's proposed new shelter on Homestead Road with dismay. Every time the IFC identifies an affordable parcel of land appropriate for a new Homestart shelter, the neighbors object. Although the Town Council does a good job of responding to the concerns of neighborhoods, this time we have a pickle. The shelter has to move. It cannot stay downtown and achieve the type of service the town and the IFC want to provide to our homeless male population. To help promote a more positive dialogue, I'd like to propose that we stop talking about "the shelter" and begin discussing the various services currently offered by the IFC and the new proposed services.
The current shelter offers three primary services: overnight beds, job and life counseling, and meals. Those who wish to spend the night at the shelter must be clean and sober, and they have to be inside by 8:00 pm and gone by early morning. Counseling is obviously used by those who desire the service. Meals are available to men, women, and children, whether they stay in the shelter or not. Many of those who use the meal service are the underemployed.
Overnight Beds
The proposed facility on Homestead Road will not replace the overnight bed service currently offered at the Rosemary St facility for everyone who wants it. The new facility is being designed to follow the Homestart model used by the women's shelter. It is not planned as a one-night stopover, but a place where motivated homeless men can get their lives back on track. Where they learn or re-learn basic skills needed to be an independent adult, such as time management, behavior control, and occupational skills.
What I haven't heard in the discussion so far is what will happen to those men who are looking for a short-term stopovers. I know from working on the homeless count that the current shelter provides beds for seasonal workers passing through town, and for local men who may be on the outs with their families.
Meal Service
The proposed facility is also not intended to replace the meal service currently offered at the Rosemary Street site. That service is under discussion with the expectation that it will move to the IFC Main Street location in Carrboro.
Job and Life Counseling
The proposed facility will offer support services to a small group of the population currently served on Rosemary Street. These are men who do not want to live on the street; who want to get their lives together; who are motivated to change. Will they slip? Probably--we all do when we are trying to change.
When I broke the IFC services down like this for myself, I was even more concerned about Monday night's meeting. We aren't talking about dangerous men living at the Homestead Road facility. But the neighbors are assuming the population will be the same as the one at the Rosemary St facility. We need to correct that wrong assumption. The men targeted for the new facility are not the panhandlers from Franklin Street. They aren't the men who want food but prefer to sleep outside so that they don't have to be sober. Those men will have no place at the new facility.
The neighbors have identified 3 basic concerns (thanks to Will Raymond for synthesizing):
- Proximity of the shelter to a park, residential neighborhoods, and daycares, afterschool programs, and schools
- Unintended consequences of the shelter that raise safety concerns
- Inequitable distribution of human services in NW Chapel Hill incurred by placing the shelter at the proposed site
If the men targeted to stay at the new shelter were the same as those who currently stay at the Rosemary St facility, concern #1 would make sense. But, as I pointed out above, this is a different population altogether.
As for unintended consequences relating to safety, I think the speakers in favor of the shelter Monday night made the point that unintended consequences can occur from wealthy property owners, men who drink and drive, who beat their wives, and who talk on their cell phones while driving. By their very nature we cannot escape unintended consequences.
Inequitable distribution of human services. This one has me perplexed. It assumes there is a negative impact by having the Health Dept or the Senior Center located in their neighborhood. Perhaps someone can explain this one to me.
Conclusion
It broke my heart this morning to read that Chris Moran is saying construction on the shelter will have to be postponed yet again while the IFC addresses neighborhood concerns. These men need help. Is there a way to create a positive dialogue, based on correct facts, to move us forward instead of passing by the opportunity offered by the UNC gift?
Issues:
Comments
I was on Franklin Street for 30 minutes on Friday and didn't see a single pan-handler. Although I did see 10 to 15 men hanging out in front of the Homeless Shelter - was that from the meal service?That is an honest question with no hidden agenda. No one has really explained the services provided to the Homeless in Chapel Hill and Orange County to those of us not downtown.Is the soup kitchen going to the same place I stopped to give a donation to the Thanksgiving Meal Program?
...and it's not often I get to say that!
I didn't attend Monday night's meeting nor watch it on cable and I'm glad I didn't. I, like Terri, would have been dismayed and saddened to watch what was later reported in the media. The Planning Board got its own dose the following night when residents came out (and supplied emails) opposing the proposed change in the definition of "shelter" in the Town ordinances from one that limits the number of residents to 25 to one that does not provide a limit. I believe that some of the residents opposing the proposed IFC shelter location made similar arguments in opposition to the renovation and expansion of Freedom House. Interestingly, I remember residents of Parkside who opposed the Freedom House changes saying that they had lived there for 5 years and didn't even realize such a facility existed in their vicinity.Unfortunately, fear of the unknown causes many people to take positions that are to them perfectly rational, however unacceptable those positions might be to us.
On October 18th The Chapel Hill News published this in regards to the new shelter location: Czajkowski said he would oppose it "unless there is a complete level of comfort that crime isn't an issue, which I don't think can be achieved."Leadership? or Pandering? you decideWhen some of those neighborhoods came out in full force against the expansion of Freedom House it was terribly unpleasant to listen to their comments, hopefully this isn't the same.Cam
As a matter a fact, those of us who supported Freedom House, took an active role to keep people focused on the Homeless Shelter and the pragmatic issues of locating a Shelter within steps of a Park Entrance (2 Minutes by MLK to the Soccer Fields).Unlike those on the far right and far left, this is a group of folks with legitimate concerns who have been stirred up by how bad we have been told the Shelter's affect has been on downtown. Many were surprised because there was no discussion prior to the announcement and no subsequent discussion afterwards until this month. People tend to get annoyed when there is no daylight process.
Mr. Wells, what has Matt Czajkowski promised you about the shelter that makes you such a fan of him? Word on the street is that he has promised to block the old Duke Power site. Is that true?
Don't put words in my mouth. I have no idea. Perhaps you should stop assuming?You want to discuss the Homeless Shelter or have a flame war? That's right no one wants to discuss the Shelter, because they can't justify it by any measure.
"People tend to get annoyed when there is no daylight process."I agree, but as I stated earlier I believe that people fear the unknown so both education and discussion are critical to resolving such impasses. Hopefully both can be conducted in a timely-enough manner that all parties will feel accomodated.
Early on people were trying to compare this to Freedom House and confusing the two.I think education and working together can solve this problem. I don't speak for the group, but personally, I donate to the IFC and I support their mission.I think a serious discussion needs to be had about why Rainbow Heights - the immediate neighbor - is being ignored. They are also opposed to this siting.I seriously want us to discuss Homelessness, because moving a Shelter doesn't solve anything.
There a some very key issues here that have to be addressed:Inequitable distribution - you forgot the Homestart Women's Shelter. Also, it should be noted that the closest neighborhood is a subsidized housing community. Proximity to park is a serious issue, because there are no plans for mitigating the effects of the people kicked out of the shelter.Unitended consequences - it is clear that relocating social services out of the downtown corridor will make it much more difficult for people who work downtown. Ruby and many of you have stated that the Shelter belongs downtown where it can do the most good. If I understand this right, there will be no Emergency Shelter. So that means that the Homeless will get fewer services.As for Freedom House, I knew it was there and had no problem with its expansion. They are often a court-ordered facility.I am not saddened that Chris Moran is taking the concerns of neighbors seriously. I think it shows a level of tolerance that has been sorely lacking from this debate. Locating a Homeless Shelter steps away from a park is just nutty. The thing that has angered me the most is how people think Parkside is an all-white neighborhood. The facts are that this is one of the most diverse neighborhoods anywhere in Chapel Hill. A truly progressive approach would be to use this opportunity to discuss the serious issues of the Homeless. Instead, there is this attemtp to say how bad the people who organize to question a very poor siting decision and process that failed to involve the leaders of the neighborhoods it would affect. Why is a daylight process such a bad thing when it involves something that should be part of the comprehensive plan to end Homelessness?I see Carrboro is fighting the expansion of the Soup Kitchen, where is the outrage on that?
There has been no effort prior to the meeting to reach out and the representatives that have been blogging have been downright abusive to me and others.There is an assumption that we are supposed to take this on faith that everything is going to be okay. But if everything is so good then why can't it stay downtown? Also why are people fighting the Carrboro Food Kitchen?I have a friend who took a friend of his in. He got a job, but ultimately he had to kick him out because he started using drugs again. To assume that there will be 100% compliance from any population is not logical. Also, the proximity to a wine and beer store, and convenience stores actually will make it harder than if it was in another location.Terri, in all fairness, I don't think it's fair for the Town to say this is a bad thing for downtown, but it belongs adjacent to Homestead Park. So I don't understand why there was no discussion prior to selecting the site.
What passes for conversation lately is one side yelling at the other.So this is refreshing. :)These men do need a chance.I agree. Putting in this location is a bad idea - too much temptation - poor proximity to transit (the bus stop in that area is crowded by the students from the 902 apartment units there) and it is next to a Park which to my knowledge is not a recommended site for a Homeless Shelter.The debate about this site was not public and many of the new residents do not spend a great deal of time blogging. This site was announced after closed door meetings with no public input. The common themes are that because there has been discussions that this site was considered, but it wasn't. This was new. The communities weren't notified or given any documentation about the Homestart Program. I probably understand more about that most and I get it, sort of.So I hope the Council will not make a mistake and put this next to Homestead Park, because one slip-up and the whole world will be watching, just like with what happened to the Petit Family in Connecticut.
Personally, locating a Shelter next to a Park is just a bad idea. It will create problems. No one has offered any information about Homestart.I don't speak for my neighbors on the subject of negotiation. However, I do strongly oppose locating the Shelter at this site. I think it should be put in the area near the Hospital.
Look, I don't know where the shelter should go but there is precedent for the council mediating the issue. I know of at least one project where a subcommittee of council members (including Edith Wiggins, Mark K. and maybe someone else) sat down and listened to all sides. The end result was a list of concerns (agreed to by both sides) that needed answers if the project was to move forward.
The issue here is that the current Mayor was part of the initial process of choosing the site and therefore would have to recuse himself from any discussions.I think the fact that it is so close to Homestead Park that is creating the biggest issue for me. No one has given a list of reasons as to why choosing this location next to a Park and a short work to wine and beer establishment and about 15 minutes (although a very dangerous walk) from an ABC store. It just seems like a very poor location. I know when I we sited the Max Robinson Center in Southeast Washington, we had to work very closely with the community to find the right site and the Mayor and Council of DC were very involved.
Again, an honest question here. When it is 10 degrees in January where will the Emergency Housing be?Because, my understanding is that this will also be the Emergency Shelter. If it is not, then what measures will be taken to help the truly Homeless (the ones with severe alcohol, drug addiction and mental illness incapable of qualifying for Homestart)?If there is no Emergency Shelter anymore, aren't we then creating a worse problem?
There will be people using the Shelter in an Emergency Capacity, so this is relocating the Shelter which will lead to an overflow and without an adequate plan, the overflow will stay in the Park.I couldn't blame them, there is a very nice covered Picnic area with full restroom facilities.That is the scenario that needs to be addressed, and that is the one that makes this location so bad. We already had a Homeless encampment at the corner of I-40 and 86.I think that is the issue that is giving everyone pause. When these men are turned away, where will they go? Everywhere in the country, the public parks become that place, so putting the shelter next to it with no plan is begging for disaster. I don't think we really want the police in the Park every night at 10, essentially criminalizing the Homeless.
I appreciate your informed opinion on this. Downtown, there are more options. My experience in DC was that the Homeless were on every park bench.Since this is a remote location, the Park is the best place to stay. In town, there are more hidden and remote locations. I think the real and legitimate fear that I have is that.I realize that this is not DC, but logically, if I had no place to go, I'd sleep on the bench under the Shelter in the Park. We are not talking close proximity. We are talking a 5 minute walk on a paved path.
Terri:I really appreciate your willingness to help me understand the issue. I am sure that my neighbors will be reading this and the more we can talk about the real issues the better.When I raise questions, that is what I am hoping to do. I don't think the site is a good choice, but I think education:1) About Homestart2) About Mitigation of the overflow3) About area PolicingAre where this debate really needs to go.So thank you. Hopefully, we can slow this process down and take the time to address these issues thoroughly.
You correction is noted: the Homestart program for men.
I was once involved in a nonprofit project that met with strong neighborhood opposition. That's when I learned (from a town official) that there are people in CH who know how to mediate NIMBY concerns and see a project through the town's permitting process all the way to the end. Of course, such a person would need to volunteer his or her services or be paid and both sides need to give. Perhaps this has been done before.I remember the night Freedom House presented its plans to the CDC or to the town. Some neighbors were out. Freedom House pledged to meet with them. Their project eventually went through.
There was no effort to discuss it. It was sprung as a done deal. There was more information about renaming Airport Road to MLK.The planning board is interesting too, because that was a petition from the Developer on behalf of the IFC, so the request for the change was technically made by the company most likely to benefit from its approval.
Steve,It makes no difference who petitions Council for a change in a Town Ordinance as long as the proposed change is evaluated by all parties on its merit. I believe that Council and the Planning Board consistently strive to do so.
It isn't a matter of belief. There is a lot of talk about influence by some prominent members of OP, but I guess this one is okay?Seriously, I grew up with Right-wingers saying exactly what you said. Wow.
Well Steve, I don't know you and obviously, if you are comparing me to a right-winger, you don't know me. But I do believe that everyone, whether they happen to be a developer or not, has a right to petition Town Council. That does happen to be the democratic way. And your demonizing someone for exercising their right seems to be the un-democratic way.
Aren't the residents of Parkside being criticized for exercising theres. And I am not saying you are a right-winger. It's just the same tactic to close debate. He's not a demon for doing it. It's just that the residents of Parkside do not have 3.8 million riding on it's approval.Everyone has their own interests, so quit questioning the rights of Parkside residents to petition council.
"The Planning Board got its own dose the following night when residents
came out (and supplied emails) opposing the proposed change in the
definition of "shelter" in the Town ordinances from one that limits the
number of residents to 25 to one that does not provide a limit."This was petitioning council, but apparently "it was a dose." I believe my e-mail questions the underlying defintion of Affordable Housing when 700 square feet did not make the cut for the one development not approved by council.So, your own words call the Parkside Petitions into question.
Steve,The "dose" I referrred to was the orchestrated opposition (and it was orchestrated as the emails were so similar they obviously reflected a concerted campaign) to a proposed Ordinance Text Amendment which, although prompted by the shelter issue, had nothing to do with the siting of the shelter. The Text Amendment defined what constitutes a shelter and the number of persons such a facility can house. Nowhere does it define where such shelter may or may not be sited. And this goes to my argument that people react before they even know what they are reacting to and the importance of education and respectful conversation. The numerous emails the PB received argued against the change in wording because this change would somehow effect where the shelter is located. They are two different issues.
(and it was orchestrated as the emails were so similar they obviously reflected a concerted campaign) - Says who? It isn't possible for a demographically similar group to come to the same conclusions?Judging by the "me toos" on here, it sounds like you guys are working on orchestrated thing. Actually, its funny you mention that, because of all of the pro-IFC posters are saying the exact things that I've seen on the IFC site and in Chris Moran's statements.So, is this you attempting to deflect a campaign? Or is it simply that people who support the siting of the Homestead Park Area Homeless Shelter share the same basic opinions and demographics?Since I will not cast aspersions on an entire group based on my feelings about your baseless comments, I am going to assume that people who support the IFC have come to their opinions spontaneously and without collusion.
Seriously, you are so good at using loaded words. I admire it. But I can tell you it was spontaneous. That's why I think it caught everyone by surprise.Let's get back to a the original issue here - who stands to make more money - the Parkside and Rainbow Heights residents or the Architects?There was nothing orchestrated about this effort. Why is it when "Progressives" on OP organize that is acceptable, but when Parkside or any other community get together, it is orchestrated?Again, you may call yourself Progressive, but your wording and attempt to criticize the Parkside Residents for petitioning Council - together or individually - sounds like something Glen Beck would say. What's worse, is that you are questoining your fellow residents right to Free Speech and assembly. As someone who has spent a large part of my life being ridiculed for being a Liberal, I find the attack from my Progressive Brothers to be shocking.
The issue regarding the Ordinance Text Amendment has nothing to do with the siting of the shelter. In preparing their Concept Plan for review the applicant (IFC) and their architects noticed that the current ordinance defines a shelter as housing no more than 25 persons. They realized that the current IFC facility (as well as the womens' and childrens' facility) was non-compliant with the Town Ordinance. The revised Text Amendment would correct this. It has nothing to do with the proposed siting of the new men's shelter and your attempt to connect the two leads me to question your supposed commitment to the IFC. What would you have the Town do? Kick out any persons in the current shelters above the currently-allowed number of 25? You seem to have all the answers - what would you do?
George:Drop the ad hominem attacks on me and I will stop calling out your inconsistencies.You are correct that the current shelters have been allowed to be out of compliance for many years. Good point. So rather than asking me that question, perhaps we should refer to the original minutes when it was decided that it should be 25 and have a full legal review of the revision. Seems reasonable to me. If it is not connected:1) Why did the architect and not the IFC itself ask for the change?2) Why is a legal review too much to ask?You see, George, the problem that I have with you at this point is that you keep trying to portray the culturally diverse Parkside neighborhood as something we're not. I have a lot of questions and to this point - you, nor anyone else has answered them.We know the questions. We'd just like some quantifiable fact-based answers.You make my point better than I do. No one has any answers here.
Steve,OK, no more attacks. But I still see that the issue of defining what constitutes a shelter in the Town Ordinance is not related to where a shelter occurs. Just because the architect brought this issue of a text amendment up doesn't mean that the two issues are legally related. In any case, the proposed text amendment will go through a public review process before Council makes a decision so everyone will have an opportunity to be heard (as they should). Best wishes.
Where in Chapel Hill is not close to a "convenience" store? or a 15 minute walk from an ABC store? In our growing city everything is close to everything else: Greenbridge is close to Northside, UNC is close to neighborhoods, children want to play in the road everywhere, the new IFC facility (whatever you call it) wherever you put it will always be close to someone. WE ARE ALL NIMBYS.A neighborhood lucky enough to get a park, could maybe have an open mind about accepting other vital community services.Cam
Cam:You're cracking me up. The park creates traffic problems, noise problems and light pollution. The aquatics Center is a monolith looming over some of the neighbors on New Parkside with a very limited tree buffer.And finally, locating a Homeless Shelter next to a park violates most people's idea of city planning.Glad you brought up the NIMBY question.The ultimate NIMBY is someone who lobbies hard to put something in someone else's backyard.We have an Open Mind. We have Freedom House, a Senior Center, Homestart for Women an Aquatics Center (plus and minus on that one), so why don't we put the Homeless Shelter in another neighborhood? Personally, I like the park, but we did have to put in speed bumps and stop signs from the traffic.What's a good reason to put a Shelter next to a park?
I have to ask, when the IFC had the opportunity to relocate next to the police station they refused? As Mr Moran stated "We didn't want that stigma". What stigma? Why are they afraid to be near a police station? If I became homeless, I sure would feel safer and more secure if the shelter was near a police station. I am not at all saying it should be located near a police station, just the fact that the IFC had the opportunity to place the shelter next to it and refused. Why have the downtown businesses been advocating the move of the shelter out of downtown for years? Well documented via articles and video in the past years. The author of this article and several others I have read report their biases on viewing one town meeting. Where is the thorough investigation on the author’s part? The past history, interviewing people throughout the town, businesses, law enforcement, researching effects of shelters in other communities. It seems to me this group of concerned citizens has been doing just that because the IFC, town council & others have not, yet when their facts from research are provided they are ignored. Some of these people have been directly affected by the expansion of Freedom house and have reported being verbally abused with vulgar language by the inhabitants as they pass by on their way to the park. What do you expect their response to be then when they now see another type of shelter being located near the park? Do these people’s opinions and experiences not count? Just because many are from another country & are minorities, they are not to be heard and then taken advantage of over and over. Why don’t the authors of these articles come spend time with the citizens of the surrounding neighborhoods and park users and get their perspective and input before assuming false accusations about them. Many of these people have provided assistance and worked at the current IFC shelter and other such facilities within Chapel Hill and outside the area. Why have you not done the same and come into these communities before you write and speak about them? Finally, for all those in favor of relocating the Shelter, the proposed shelter will have emergency overnight beds. There are several levels of residency defined and not all overnight stays will want to join the program too progress to the other levels and for those not willing to abide by the rules will be turned away at the door and as docmnetd in an interview Mr. Moran stated, "Not my problem, that's a County problem." Anyway, for those who are in favor, I propose you look around your own neighborhoods for a suitable location and bring that location up to the IFC and town council and take the initiative to help move the shelter to that location. Any takers?
So Czajkowski is not the friend of the downtown? I mean, he sure sounds like he doesn't want to move IFC out of downtown.
The argument/reason has been made that the IFC must move because the town wants the building back to use for the town. The IFC is proposing to build a new builidng for its purpose that will cost $$$$$$. If there is no other reason to move the shelter (that is the main reason the IFC and others provide) then why doesn't the IFC or whoever is funding the new building just purchase the current bulding from the town & rennovate that building however they choose. The residents themselves could help in various capacities in the rennovation as well as outside vlounteers. The town can then build a new building for their use from the sale and of course our tax dollars. So I don't believe in the argument/reason the shelter must move because the town wants the building has much validity when there are other options available. Where are all the studies? That's one main concern, there have not been any.Regards
Does anyone know why the IFC is not considering purchasing the sorority house that has been for sale on Hillsborough Road for the past several years? I understand it has many bedrooms and bathrooms, a commercial kitchen, plenty of parking, etc. And it is already built! Why not save time and resources and buy that instead of clear-cutting trees (if you walk the Duke Energy property with the IFC proposal, you will see they have to cut down trees on the corner where they propose to build) and building a brand new facility? Sure, some renovation will be needed, but isn't that better than starting from scratch? It's on a bus route, and in easy walking distance to both MLK and Franklin Streets and their various bus routes, its around the corner from the police station, but not so close as to "stigmatize" the shelter with police presence (although I find that argument hypocritical), and it's already there! I don't know the price, but it's quite possibly less than the amount they're proposing to spend on the new facility.
It is sad indeed that people are so confused about the shelter clients and those who loiter and panhandle on Franklin St. With the shelter for women and children at the Social Services building behind the Senior Center, there has not been any discussion that I have heard.We just don't understand the problem on Franklin St. and how it isn't related to the shelter!