IFC Community House meets the neighbors

On Monday night, March 31st, the Inter-Faith Council sponsored the first of three community discussions about the proposed IFC Community House facility. The IFC plans to re-locate its men’s homeless shelter from its current location on Rosemary Street to a UNC-donated site at Homestead Road and Martin Luther Kind Blvd. The organization is sponsoring the community meetings to share information about the proposed Community House project and to solicit feedback from the community about the project. Seventy people were in attendance, more than two-thirds of whom were confirmed as Chapel Hill citizens who strongly opposed placing the shelter at the Homestead Road location. Most of the others in attendance were IFC staff. During the facilitated discussions session, it was clear that citizens overwhelmingly oppose the Homestead location and cited several key reasons for that opposition. First, citizens have grave safety concerns that arise from the emergency component of the shelter. The IFC described Community House as a facility quite different from the Rosemary Street emergency shelter, assuring neighbors that the new facility will be a transitional house for men down on their luck who will work hard to get back on their feet. Yet citizens pointed out that the new shelter facility will still have a strong emergency component. Resident Tina CoyneSmith said, “the proposed shelter will remain the only emergency shelter in all of Orange County. That makes it an emergency shelter facility, whatever else it might also try to be.”Citizens further expressed serious concerns about white flag nights, the industry term used to describe those nights when weather conditions are rainy, fall below 40 degrees, or climb above 95 degrees. On these nights (which counted 206 in 2009) the shelter will take in as many people as it can fit, with no plan to move them away from the park when they are released at 7 AM. Though the IFC claims it will have a zero tolerance alcohol and drug policy for the men in the transitional program, no such policy exists for the men to be housed on an emergency basis. The shelter will be a “wet shelter,” that is it will accept drunk or high men, so long as they are not disruptive. Men who are disruptive will be asked to leave the shelter, with no plan to move them away from the park or surrounding residential neighborhoods.  Chris Moran, executive director of IFC, stated that the new facility would shelter a maximum of 17 men in emergency cots on these white flag nights. Citizens questioned that estimate, noting that the current shelter now houses at least twice that number on white flag nights. Citizens asked why a newer bigger shelter would actually serve fewer people that the current inadequate one. Moreover, citizens were clearly unhappy with even 17 men being housed on a rotating emergency basis. Neighbors felt that they were being sold a bill of goods when it was revealed that the thus-far described “new facility with a new program” was window dressing on what is still going to operate as an emergency facility. Second, citizens were vocal about their extreme displeasure with the lack of public process in the siting of the shelter. The proposed site adjoins three daycares, two afterschool programs for schoolchildren, Homestead Park (with heavily used soccer and baseball fields as well as a skate park and aquatic center), 900 apartments that house largely UNC students, and 13 residential neighborhoods that comprise 1,900 homes. Citizens believe that placing a homeless shelter directly next to these entities poses grave safety risks for the Chapel Hill Community. The IFC was unable to answer questions about how the town arrived at the Homestead site. Citizens noted that there was no impact study done, nor was there a study of the effects of homeless shelters placed in residential neighborhoods in other communities. There was no list of ranked public criteria against which a series of sites were vetted. One neighbor noted that the town conducted an impact study before changing the name of Airport Road to Martin Luther King Blvd, and yet there has been no impact study for moving a shelter next to neighborhoods. Another citizen noted that only IFC criteria were considered in selecting the site. Criteria that the public would have provided in a public process, such as proximity to homes, parks, and schools, were not factors in the selection. One neighbor noted that this site would actually be illegal for a shelter in Winston-Salem, NC as the city has a spacing requirement that prohibits a new shelter from being placed “within a distance of two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet from any other Shelter.” Proponents of the Homestead Road site from the IFC suggested that the park would actually be an excellent source of recreation for the homeless men housed at the shelter and that it would serve as a buffer between the shelter and neighborhoods. One citizen was over heard to say, “Your buffer is my children’s park.” Finally, citizens expressed grave concern about the overconcentration of social services in one small area of Chapel Hill. One Chapel Hill citizen, who was clear to say that she does not live near the proposed site, went so far as to call for the town council to make a formal policy about siting its social services so that the burden is spread equitably across the town. There was consensus that all social services should not be located within 1/10 of a square mile in Chapel Hill, as would be the case if the shelter is located at Homestead Road. The IFC asked one overarching question to those in attendance: how can the IFC and Community House be a good neighbor to you. The local citizenry offered a near-unanimous and resounding answer: find a better site for the men’s homeless shelter.

Ruby, I am glad they sound incorrect to you.  Perhaps if you knew all of the facts, you might change your opinion of the proposed new site.  At the facilitated discussion on March 4th among the Town, residents, University, and IFC, Chris Moran was the one who stated that the emergency shelter would accept men who were drunk and/or high into the shelter.  This is a fact.    Regarding the number of white flag nights (when weather conditions are rainy, fall below 40 degrees, or climb above 95 degrees) the 206 nights comes from national weather service data for RDU from 2009.  This is another fact.As far as what citizens who oppose the proposed site feel, I encourage you to look at the Community Discussion Notes from the March 31st meeting posted on the IFC website and prepared by the meeting facilitators, Leading and Governing Associates, Inc.   These notes clearly show that citizens are concerned about safety (mentioned in the notes of all 10 small groups), white flag nights (7 of 10), and overconcentration of social services in one small area of Chapel Hill (6 of 10).  The IFC themselves stated that these issues along with the site selection process were general themes that they heard at the meeting. If you want to look at statements that sound incorrect, the IFC states on their website that “People who are homeless are not any more dangerous than those who live in homes.”  However, according to the Orange County 10 year plan to end chronic homelessness 30% of homeless are from the criminal justice system, 23% are severally mentally ill, and 37% have chronic substance abuse issues.  I highly doubt that is the same makeup of those residents in Orange County who are not homeless. We seem to both dislike how this site was chosen.  I am advocating for a public process for the selection of a new shelter site, one that involves public criteria along with a formal evaluation and ranking of potential sites.  It seems to me that a public process would be a good use of everyone’s time.

I wrote the release that Ruby feels is “not helping.” I am not sure what that means exactly, but I assure you that these ARE the reasons that hundreds of Chapel Hill citizens oppose the site. Also—the facts you say sound incorrect ARE CORRECT. If it sounds like they can’t possibly be right, you are having the same reaction I am. Further clarifications: 1. Emergency Shelter. With even 17 emergency beds, the facility will be an emergency shelter, whatever else it also is. It is also the only men’s emergency shelter in the county. I felt as if I were in a Kurt Vonnegut book at the meeting the other night: “This is not an emergency shelter. Now let’s talk about the emergency shelter portion of the program.” 2. White Flag Nights. We (exceptional academic researchers and IT professionals) painstakingly compiled weather data from the national weather service for 2009. 206 nights met the criteria published by the IFC for white flag nights. Molly (above) asked Chris Moran in a post if there really were 206 white flag nights in 2009. Chris did not answer her, but rather said that he could not answer without going back through “countless logs.” What is fact is that 206 nights met the weather criteria published by the IFC for white flag nights. I encourage anyone else to get the data themselves from the national weather service and do the counting. 3. Wet Shelter. I attended a meeting facilitated by Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center that included Chris Moran, Roger Stancil (town manager), other reps from the IFC, a rep from UNC, and four neighbors. At that meeting, Chris Moran looked me in the eye and told me directly that the emergency beds could be used to shelter men who had been drinking or using drugs. Laurie Tucker of the IFC further noted that usually the drunk and high men just wanted to fall asleep. Allowing men who have been drinking or using to stay in the emergency portion of the shelter makes this a wet shelter by definition and increases risk.4. Public Process. There has been no public process to selecting this site. Only IFC criteria have been considered. Chapel Hill has no policy for siting social services and there is no list of criteria (that includes criteria other than the IFC’s) that are ranked against which a series of sites was vetted. Rather this site was announced one day with no public process. It WOULD be illegal in Winston-Salem, which does have policies about siting shelters. 5. Overconcentration of Social Services. Bedded social services near communities bring risk to those communities. Simple as that. More social services bring more risk. There is enough risk in the 1/10 of a square mile of Chapel Hill that houses these services. Be kind to your Parkside compatriots—several of them have Freedom House residents looking in their back windows at their teenaged daughters (this is a true story from a neighbor of mine). Think about that and understand why they do not want to accept more risk in their neighborhood. Chapel Hill needs a policy on siting social services so that the entire community assumes a portion of the inherent risk.  Finally, there are no names but mine in my release because I did not feel comfortable using names publicly without permission. I have names, and I sent this release to the media encouraging them to cover the community meetings in a more formal way. Some papers did this (see the Herald Sun). However, lest you think I made up these issues and things I heard citizens opposed to the site say, you can check out this same list of issues that the 3rd party facilitators also heard citizens say on the IFC’s website. Having said all this, I want to be clear. The IFC is a wonderful organization that does great work. I have personally supported IFC programs through my church. Remember also that most of us “red shirt folks” are great parents, incredible school/PTA volunteers, soccer and baseball coaches, scout leaders, church volunteers, board leaders, community activists, and strong advocates for social justice. We also believe that it makes zero sense to site a men’s homeless shelter next to a children’s park, daycares and residential neighborhoods. Chapel Hill needs a better site for the men’s homeless shelter.

Same old misinformation and lies from opponents to the IFC Community House program, proposed to be located at the corner of MLK Blvd and Homestead Road (not in the middle of Homestead Park!).It's a waste of time to argue with these people, you might as well debate a post in the ground. Weather data from the national weather service? LOL.March on Red Shirts! Thought you were wolfpack fans.

Virtually all of the opposition to the IFC's shelter site, as far as I can tell, focuses on the perception of safety to the neighbors.  They seem to feel that the clients of the shelter, particularly the emergency clients, may hang around in the park or its surroundings if they are turned away or when they leave in the morning.  What if the Town commited to extra police patrols of the area, both night and day, to insure the safety of the neighborhoods.  It would cost the taxpayers of Chapel Hill.  By my guess it might cost the average homeowner $15-20 per year.   But the Town does have some responsibility to deal with the homeless issue in Town.  It isn't just the IFC's problem.  And if extra police patrols would bring the neighbors the peace of mind necessary to accept the shelter I say it is a price the entire Town should be willing to accept.  The extra police patrols could also be used to increase traffic safety on Homestead Road and MLK Jr. Blvd.  And over time, if those initial fears turn out to be unfounded, the extra police patrols could certainly be used elsewhere.