I'm a big supporter of the IFC and its mission. And I support its desire to create a new type of facility, a transitional facility for homeless men and the need to relocate somewhere. And I'm disappointed that there is opposition to the proposed site for that new facility. But I also think that the dialogue has gone beyond civility and that the neighborhoods adjoining the proposed site are being unfairly demonized. In the 12 years I have served on Town advisory boards I have seen many neighborhoods oppose many projects for many different reasons - some good, some bad, some rational, some irrational.
The fact of the matter is that I cannot think of, I can't even imagine, a single Chapel Hill neighborhood that would not be opposing the siting of the proposed facility in their neighborhood. And that saddens me a great deal because I like to think that we Chapel Hillians can do better than other cities and towns. But until we come up with a solution for where to put this facility we aren't doing any better than most other towns in the US. So perhaps instead of pointing fingers, instead of tossing insults and inuendos, instead of demonizing our fellow citizens who are only doing what our own neighbors (but certainly not we) would be doing, we can try to use the large amount of intellectual capital we are blessed with in this community to try to figure out a working solution. And that, in my mind, does not mean laying it all on the IFC to figure it out.
Just my $0.02.
Issues:
Comments
One can dream
Thanks for this, George.
How about a list of criteria?
A long time ago someone suggested creating a list of site characteristics to inform the IFC and town's location search. The town supports the shelter financially. It also mandates through law the definition of "shelter" and regulates its location via zoning, SUP rules, and by its inclination to enforce said rules or overlook them either deliberately or by accident. So this is a community issue. I have watched neighborhoods raise their arms up in protest against development projects for many years, leading to the creation of a novel legal designation: neighborhood preservation districts. I'm not suggesting that here, just noting that in those cases the town council attempts to ensure that the neighbors' concerns are addressed.
Yes--a list of criteria (not just IFC criteria) is needed
Creating a list of characteristics that best serves the community (not just IFC criteria that were used) and vetting a variety of sites against them is one of the 3 big points in the case of those of us in opposition to the Homestead site. We have been asking the town to do this since the October 19 town council meeting. I agree--we need that. We need to consider carfully things like proximity to daycares, parks, and homes in addition to things like zoning and public transportation. And we need a formal policy for siting. As I said in another thread last week--I cannot believe that all the brainpower in our "highest phD per capita town" cannot find a better site.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more
Well, that's as much intellectual capital as I can muster now. Good and obvious points, George. And Ruby, back to a point you made long ago, an emergency shelter for transients would best be downtown.The founders of the current shelter were thrilled to find a downtown place and felt that was exactly where it should be. They wanted our most popular public space, at that time, to see the homeless on our shopping trips and window viewing strolls. As a community of faith we wanted the IFC shelter to be a welcoming place for the homeless; they were not to be hidden or isolated.The transitional program proposed is a different matter that should threaten no one. But if we are to fear and demonize the homeless then we have some work to do. When the facility is completed and opened at the proposed site there will no longer be a organized shelter for those who need overnight shelter. There will be food and there will be an emergency location for weather purposes.It is not the IFC's responsibility to solve this problem, it is all of our responsibility. Where can we locate a shelter for the temporary homeless person and who will do it?
Agree completely
I've written to the two mayors and to the chair of the BoCC asking them
to take on the leadership role to address this upcoming loss of an
emergency shelter. I also plan to attend the next meeting of the
10-year-plan group to ask them to step up. If others agree, this is a good topic for letters to the editor. The IFC should not be responsible for solving all the problems of the homeless. They already manage the Community Kitchen, Project HomeStart, and the food distribution center. It's time for the local governments (us!) to provide more than a few dollars.
A start
I would think an emergency shelter should be convenient to a bus route, to a community soup kitchen, and it should be safe for everyone. You note the shelter founders wanted it to be welcoming, not isolated. This emergency shelter is a "wet" shelter, I take it meaning that some clients may not be sober. That fact doesn't mean we should "fear or demonize the homeless", but it matters. I don't know what the zoning would need to be. I'm sure there's other things to add to a fledgling list and better ways to collect ideas.
Public criteria
Public Criteria on top of IFC's criteria:
When an emergency shelter is proposed
maybe public criteria should be used. But Community House is not an emergency shelter. Until people start accepting that, this argument is going to continue.
You had mentioned separating the two uses
earlier and I was assuming you meant the emergency shelter from Community House under the assumption that it's the emergency shelter aspect that is not a good fit next to a park. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Separating the two
Yes, I did mean separating the emergency beds from the transitional housing (Community House).I don't believe any public criteria are needed for Community House. The IFC has a free location, and plans are to share services with HomeStart. The proposed site is ideal (IMHO) as long as the emergency beds are removed from the plan.
Separating does not solve all problems
Transitional Housing should be able to transition sex offenders and the proposed site is too close to 200 preschoolers for that. And overconcentration of at-risk social services is still an issue for many, particularly given that 20 of the beds are phase 1 of 3 and are considered "emergency beds" in IFC's concept SUP (different than "white flag night" beds). This is also a point of disagreement. (previous post on topic)
No way around it--Community House is PART emergency shelter
Again, Terri--it serves an emergency function 197 nights of the year, which makes Community House as it currently stands at least part emergency shelter. There's just no other way around that. And these emergency beds are reall ythe only men's emergency homeless beds in the county. So if the plan changes entirely, maybe I could agree with you that it's not emergency. But as it stands now, the plan as Rebecca described it last week is at least part an emergency shelter. Thus we need to treat it as such.
I have an idea
I think that everybody in Chapel Hill and Carrboro who really feels strongly about the homeless problem should self-identify. This will yield, for purpose of discussion, 5000 people.Then each of those people would be assigned the task of housing one homeless man for one night. If the average number of homeless men is 50, say, then any given person would only have to take the person for one night out of 100, or a little less than 3 times a year. If more people sign up, great.It'd be kind of like jury duty, if Roscoe is right, "it is all of our responsibility."The Town would give you $25 to offset the food cost, drop the homeless person off at around 6 PM, and pick them up again around 7 or 8 in the morning. The IFC would still have the management overhead (it's a publicly-subsidized business, after all) as well as the soup kitchen and relationships with the churches.What is wrong with this idea?Well, I know it won't go over well with the 'progressives' because it effectively privatizes one of their pet industries. But honestly, shouldn't the issue of addressing homelessness be paramount over politics?
I Try To Keep An Open Mind...
toward all opinions and points of view. But at the end of the day some people just need to be labeled a**h**es and ignored.
Ad hominem
I'd have been more moved if you could tell me what's bad about my idea, instead of what's bad about me.
Thank you George
for your thougthful commentary. I too agree that we should be able to figure out a solution. And certainly one that does not involve siting an emergency shelter next to a park. I was encouraged by the tone and spirit of your comments. I was then frustrated to read Roscoe’s comments. Just a few hours after you were attempting to start a civil thoughtful discussion I am reading the inflamtory comments of Roscoe. A statement like “When the facility is completed and opened at the proposed site” defies the spirit I believe you were attempting to engender. It riles up those of us who are opposed to the site especailly when we keep being told by others here that it is not a done deal. We all agree that the emergency beds should be separated from the transitional program, however the IFC has 20 emergency beds and 32 transitional beds in the current 52 bed plan and an additional 17 cots on white flag nights. Would it be a better idea to leave the emergency shelter downtown and create a program that is only transitional at a separate site? Absolutely! However, I doubt the IFC or the town has the resources to fund two such operations. In addition, my understading from the IFC community meetings is that the UNC land grant at MLK and Homestead is conditional on the shelter moving out of downtown. It seems like an opportunity for some creative thinking from members of our community. I hope that we can live up to the challenge.
Me, Inflammatory?
My feelings are hurt. I would do anything not to riles up the opposed. Lawd, what was I thinking? Didn't mean to imply it was a done deal but since I'm not on the IFC or Town Council I'll embrace my positive feelings about the outcome of the process if the IFC proceeds.Indeed, it is not a done deal. The SUP process must be survived and the money raised. No small matter.What I tried to focus on was the fact that emergency beds should be separated from the transitional facility and there are no plans to shelter the overnight transient homeless man once the current shelter is closed. That's where our creative thinking must focus and that is hard to do with all the paranoia floating around on this blog. Read George's beginning again!
Community House IS an emergency shelter
We all agree that emergency beds and transitional beds should be in separate locations. What is fact is that the relocated Community House is ALSO an emergency shelter. Your statement that “there are no plans to shelter the overnight transient homeless man once the current shelter is closed” is not true. According to the IFC the new Community House is a shelter. The presentation that the IFC gave to the Town Council on 10/19/09 not only calls it a shelter, but says that 20 of the 52 beds will be used for emergency shelter. On white flag nights (197 in 2009 according to IFC) there will be an additional 17 emergency cots made available. This is a total of 37 emergency beds and only 32 transitional beds. In my opinion, this makes the primary function of the facility a shelter 54% (197/365) of the year. Since we all agree that the two programs need to be at different locations, perhaps a solution that involves an emergency shelter and a transitional program in two different locations would be more palatable.
Purposes ---- goals
If we are making a list of criteria for sighting this facility, it would help me if there was a list of the proposed purposes that it will serve? Maybe others understand the purposes of this facility well but I only understand the purpose of this facility in a very broad, nonspecific way. Reading what has been on this site it, seems like there are some clear well spelled out purposes and others that are less clear to me.Another question, is there a facility in Orange County that will house a homeless family as a family?
The role of IFC
The primary intent of the proposed facility is to provide support to those men who want to get off the street. Hopefully, every one, including the opponents, will accept that statement as true.But that leaves a gap in services for those who are not yet ready to make the commitment to change their lifestyles. This is where it gets murky. Should IFC be expected to continue filling that gap in services through the provision of temporary emergency beds at the new facility, even on a temporary basis? As you have seen here, their willingness to do so has jeopardized their primary goal. Before any details are locked in stone, I believe the community needs to decide whether we support IFC's desire to pursue transitional housing service and solve the gap in services through
other means; or, whether we continue to expect IFC to shoulder the full
responsibility of serving the homeless population on their own. This community dialogue has increased my already high regard for the IFC. They're kind of like a favorite bachelor uncle. You expect them to be around, but you don't consciously realize the value they add to your life until a crisis arises. The IFC has always been here; they feed, clothe, and shelter the poor and the homeless. Granted, there are many, many volunteers from the community who help with their time and financial contributions. But ultimately, it's IFC that accepts the responsibility for the fundraising, the procurement, the facility maintenance, the recruitment and scheduling of volunteers, etc. etc. etc.As this community grows, is it reasonable to expect one non-profit agency to carry that full responsibility?
Where we agree and disagree
All of the "opponents of the proposed location" writing on OP whom I have met support IFC's mission. Most if not all of these folks actively support IFC and other homeless organizations via volunteering, contributions of money and food, etc. I will note that within our Orange County community there are a number of people who do not support spending $5M to build a facility to house homeless people, based on comments made to me in conversation and comments observed at the IFC question-gathering meetings. I mention that just to be clear about categories of opposition.
This text provides a good foundation to progress into the areas of disagreement. First, historical evidence strongly contradicts that "temporary facilities" are truly temporary, per the 20 year temporary Rosemary shelter. Second, there is disagreement that removing white flag nights overcomes the 20 emergency beds (step 1 - no contract) and disagreement that this location beside 2 preschools and with overconcentration should be allowed even if the facility were just the primary 32 transitional men (20 step 2 and 12 step 3 men).
We can agree that it is fine to pursue a transitional housing service and still disagree that this location is appropriate for that. I agree that it is not reasonable to expect IFC or any single organization to provide all of the homeless responsibilities.
I agree with IFC's mission. However, I disagree about the meetings held by IFC. I participated in two of the meetings. There was no dialogue between the community and IFC. There was an intro monologue with no questions allowed and then there were questions and concerns developed in small groups - small groups which had no IFC answering representation or capability. A dialogue is defined as a conversation. I believe that IFC's main goal was to harvest questions so that they could work on spinning them and practice honing their soundbites. That is why the meetings were placed in that format and why the prompts presumed that the site was a proper site. In a true dialog, there must be at least an unbiased framing of the discussion (though ideally parties agree to an agenda and to framing of the conversation).
I agree that it is not reasonable to expect IFC or any single organization to provide all of the homeless responsibilities.
No plans for family shelter at present
As a starting point, here are the main capacities (requirements) for the current proposed men's shelter at Homestead from concept plan and recent meetings:
Step 1,2,3 numbers are more firm because they are linked to rooms upstairs and account for a good bit of the square footage upstairs.
Upstairs bathroom capacity is at least 52 men. Downstairs bathroom capacity is the *same* according to Chris at the 3rd meeting, so the downstairs, from a bathroom point of view, can provide shower and bathroom facilities for at least 52 men (supporting more than 17 white flag men).
There is no man + woman + their children shelter and no organization or government body appears to have plans to pursue one. Most ordinances that provide more than a definition of the term shelter require a 1000 foot school/preschool buffers for mens singles shelter. Of these, a few allow a shelter which houses children to be closer.
The existing women's and children's shelter has 3 buildings. One for emergency women beds. One for Single Women. One for Women and Children. I recall that they mix when necessary.
under a contract
Mark or someone else, What kind of contract are we talking about? I am sorry but I guess I've come to this discussion very late and ill prepared.
Contract
This particular contract is what transitional clients sign to show commitment for the program. It is my understanding that prior to the signing of the contract, there is an observation period, an assessment, and a transition plan created.
Just put it next to the
Just put it next to the police station. There's a big piece of land there. I don't think it's real close to any big neighborhoods. Not much crime occurs next to a police station so that's one less thing for them to worry about. What's the downside? Someone said it's stigmatizing. That's just nutty. If anything, it's de-stigmatizing. Suppose you own a business and two homeless guys come to you asking for a job. Which are you more likely to hire, the one living at a shelter next to the police station or the one living in a shelter far away from a police station?
Chris Moran said that
That was Chris Moran himself who made that statemnt in a town council meeting in 2009 when he gave the reason for refusing the opportunity to relocate the shelter there.
Ramblings on the subject
First I am disturbed that it seems like there is an implicit assumption in this discussion to approach homeless men as if they are predators.Second, it seems like there are three potential groups of men to be served by this project. 1. Men who want to have a life style where they live in traditional homes but for various mental health reasons lack some of the skills to achieve this goal. 2. Men who are down on their luck, don't have a home anymore and may need help in obtaining jobs or developing certain life skills. 3. Men who have chosen a different life style but for various environmental reasons may need shelter from time to time.Is serving these three groups in one facility optimal or even feasible? Will the educational and behavioral services desired by these first two groups be provided at the site by the IFC or will other organizations provide these services? Also, it would be helpful for my understanding of this discussion if someone would explain what the "stigma" is in being next to the police station, lacking this explanation my imagination goes in lots of directions perhaps all of them wrong.
Crime - Same data, different analysis
The IFC has posted a sociologist's analysis of Chapel Hill crime data on their blog site:http://marchonpoverty.blogspot.com/She uses the raw police report data from the www.nccrime.us site prepared by Mark Peters.Her analysis suggests to me that:1. Chapel Hill as a whole has a relatively low crime rate.2. The area around the proposed new Community House site currently has a low crime rate.3. The data does not lead to the conclusion that a new (and different) Community House will significantly increase crime in that part of town.
Crime - Same data, different analysis
The author of the papers on IFC's website concludes that we can build all the at risk facilities we want in Parkside, Meadowmont, the Oaks, or any other suburban neighborhood as long the neighborhood will have less crime than downtown Franklin Street. I am not sure that this is the policy with which most Chapel Hillians would agree.
Every map in IFC's papers shows that there is a hotspot of criminal incidents at the current shelter. The author admits in the conclusion that she cannot disprove that this crime was committed by shelter residents. If you read her conclusions, you will find an admission that without better data from CHPD, she cannot really conclude how much crime will move to the new location.
I have found what appear to be several major issues with the data and conclusions in IFC's papers. I have asked for the geocoding data so that I can verify the errors, but the author, thus far, has been unwilling to provide it.
Let's be clear that the author took the incident addresses off of nccrime.us and performed her own geocoding. nccrime.us does not provide a mass export function for programmatic use so I have no way to verify that she harvested the data correctly. Nor do I have any way to validate her geocodings without having access to her results.
The author does not analyze the programs of each facility. Nor does she analyze the data from a town planning point of view.
Where does it end
I think history is a good indicator fo the future. The IFC tries to imply specific use & limits for the shelter. But as been stated in other comments and in history the current shelter has grown. With the proposed town oridiance change for shelters, growrth will be unlimitied. As well once the shelter is established and thyr want to move the kitchen (which they say is not part of the new shelter) where will it go. Well it will go to where its easiet to place and it will be placed at the shelter because yes it's already established, has the room , facilties etc. Just like being reasoned now to move the sheleter there. If they need to enlarge it they will instead of locating a seond somewhere else. This wil lbe the future growth that nobody wants to mention, but history has already answered.Why is it OK that one area of a town have the majority of public assitance. If in fact CH citizens are progressive as they state then why shouldn't it be distirubuted evenly among the population?
So What II ?
Public Assistance is an interesting comment, which is no small deal considering how long this thread has assaulted our eyes. Who's publically assisted? All of us? Who are you referring to, us geezers in the senior center? Those people getting flu shots at Public Health? Those Parkside children going to public school?Oh well, just playing with you. Having been here for the civil rights movement of the early 60's I 've heard before about where people want others to be, and why they should be distributed to every neighborhood/school. New day, different groups, same thinking. Actually the Pine Knolls area exploded when it was thought the IFC might put its shelter in their neighborhood. Irony abounds.On a negative practical level: If you buy a home and don't want something in your neighborhood you had better research land use and zoning within whatever space for comfort you need and determine that's not possible.Several here have bothered to look me up and where I live to complain that my support for the IFC Community House comes with no cost, cause I'm on the other side of town. Give me some credit, I live in a swamp, I'm next to those people in the Oaks, and according to Mark Peters I live in a top crime neighborhood (Oaks people?). I'm ok, doing ok. Haven't thought about those receiving public assistance...but one of you birds say I live 3/9ths of a mile from that. That what? Where is this horror called public assistance and why haven't I been warned before?Back to sleep.....await your scorn........is this civil dialogue, George?
It is Roscoe
But you also make a point that I was trying to make when you pointed out that the Pine Knolls neighborhood raised a fuss when they thought the IFC was coming their way. There isn't a neighborhood in Chapel Hill that wouldn't oppose the new IFC facility because that is the natural reaction of most people to change: fear. How we move beyond fear of the unknown to trust and acceptance is something that you can't just order up. It is going to require leadership - leadership that can convince people to set their fears aside and trust that the community will do what is fair and just for everyone. I hope that we can find that leadership when we need it.
Amen
It looks like fair and just will have to work its way out via the SUP process. Not happiness, mind you, but fair and just. There are hoops for any applicant to jump thru and testimony heard and assessed by Council.You could drive a truck thru SUP wiggle room, however, and Council has always reserved for itself wiggle room. It is often here that leadership finds opportunity: an assurance promised, a creative solution proposed, fears identified and addressed, false information challenged, and views are respected and listened to. And then good leadership will move to a decision realizing that some will take a long time to be convinced that they were treated fairly and heard. And maybe some of the losers will run for Council.I appreciate you taking us back to that painful point: would not every neighborhood be opposed? But let us hope that in this community opposing would not be an end for difficult issues, but a understandable reaction that we are willing to examine and maybe reconsider. Have we been fair and just?Opponents to Community House should have more respect from me, or at least empathy. If not Rodney King, at least a recognition of how I would explain my neighbors if the IFC came calling at our doors. It is good leadership that will see better things in this than we see in ourselves.Whatever the outcome, there will be lots to think about and do to help the homeless, including the need for emergency shelter.
If it were simply a matter
If it were simply a matter of fearing change then people and businesses downtown would be fearing the change of the shelter leaving and something else taking its place. Does anyone think that is so? There isn't a neighborhood in Chapel Hill (or Carrboro) that wouldn't oppose the new IFC facility but it's not just because of fear of change. Demonization of it is counterproductive but then again so is pretending it's no different than anything else.
Not Quite The Same
"If it were simply a matter of fearing change then people and businesses
downtown would be fearing the change of the shelter leaving and
something else taking its place. Does anyone think that is so?"Joe, it isn't quite the same. In the example you pointed out, the downtown businesses are asking for the shelter to be moved. People don't tend to fear change nearly as much if they themselves are requesting the change. Under such a circumstance they have an expectation of what they think or would like to be the result of the change they are requesting.
That's my point though.
That's my point though. It's not change per se that people fear but rather what they expect the effect of that change to be. The downtown businesses want the shelter to be moved because they expect it will make their lives better. And the people in the proposed place for the shelter to move to don't want the shelter there because they expect it will make their lives worse.