Results 141-160 of 172

Anyone who thinks Jesse Helms was a hero should go and live in Afghanistan. I'm sure you would find their laws to your liking. You will find no out gays or lesbians and the women are sufficiently oppressed.

These people are disingenuous at best, out-right loathsome at worst. They know damn well that they are fighting for re-segregation and that they could care less about the overall education level of society as long as they can keep their schools homogeneous. At least in the old days of segregationists they didn't try to hide it.

If you build it they will come. We have seen this over the years with the current shelter.

Congratulations Billy.....if there is anyone we know that is creative and interesting enough to have an entire Indy feature it's you! we're so proud
Andrea and Pete

Ann:

Words like yours haunt me:

We try to minimize consequences with accurate research and information, not with denial and by preying on generalizations. If the intent is to create hysteria and continue to breed suspicion, then we are certainly on target here. However, I wonder if accurate details would help instead of spin and skewed facts? I wonder if it makes sense to talk to the organization versus not listening and LEAVING the hearing before everyone has spoken?

Accurate research and information are exactly what the concerned citizens in North Chapel Hill want and are trying to get by asking the IFC for specific, concrete information. Instead of details we’re getting judgments about the judgments we are assumed to be making and assurances about how good and safe homeless people are. Of course: some are – some aren’t – just like the rest of us.

So, instead of judging our beliefs, our actions and whether or not we're listening(because we are -- even those, like me, who had to leave the meeting “early” after over two hours for children at home and a husband still at the meeting to represent our family), please listen to the fact-based concerns and issues we’re raising. Instead of judging, stop, look at the facts, and hold off on the assumptions; they are not doing any of us one bit of good.

Regarding "No one offered an alternative site."...

This is a totally bogus statement. The hearing was about the suitability of one particular site. Had the town council and shelter held a meeting to discuss siting criteria and a list of sites which met those criteria (like is being done with the current trash transfer station process) then the public would have been "on topic" to talk about an alternative site. Unfortunately the town skipped right over this stage of the process.

Dear Joe, the quote from your original article:

“Fifteen people spoke before Town Council, including former shelter volunteers who vouched for the men there. Other residents said they didn't want to raise their families near people of that ilk. One man suggested that a homeless person might have robbed his home, though he had no evidence. No one offered an alternative site. ”

Since I am not aware of the best location in Durham, if you are willing to provide the best spot for this shelter, please show us your heroic WIMBY and tell us where is your backyard.

Here is my alternative sites suggestion:

Since no one tells me the real reason why is this relocation needed, I will pretend that I don’t know it (IFC leaders, please tell us the truth if you know it). Let’s do it based on facts. The best position which beats all the criteria IFC has laid out will be:……… somewhere on Manning Dr. or South Rd., here are the reasons:

1) Transportation is a significant barrier for many requiring services. Here is the comparison of transportation convenience: The proposed new site only have T, NS and A three bus lines, while my proposed sites will have average 4-6 lines on each spots, bingo!

2) One of IFC’s findings was that separating the residential services from the food services would provide improvements to both. The separation of the men’s residential facility from the Community Kitchen will make Community House a much different facility than that currently found on Rosemary Street. So moving this shelter to my proposed site will definitely satisfy this criteria. Especially move it to further south on the street.

3) A close proximity to other social service providers is another important criterion determined for a successful program. So my proposed sites are even better for this purpose, it will be closer for all the service it needs: a) most job opportunities are located in downtown or University campus, this is best for helping these people out of homeless status; b) many social service also are within walking distance for these folks; c) for many student volunteers, it will take no time for them to offer their helps, instead of taking repetitive long trips to travel far in the north to provide their helps in IFC’s proposed site; d) another reason as a good choice: the hospital, dental school and emergency room are right there to provide the best service than the small units will be setup inside the facility, this can save a lot of funds for IFC, which can be used to help more folks in need.

4) The site was provided as a gift from UNC ($99 for 99 years, any reason for that?). Since UNC is already very generous to provide this gift, it could be even easier for it to provide a corner of so many big buildings it owns to IFC, or some of their recently vacant buildings (like the old cancer clinic building). I agree that the location will be better than the one it promised to give, so the rental could be increased to $198 for 99 years instead of $99. I will be glad to donate $99 dollars to make it the same deal if my suggestion is accepted.

5) Added bonus from my proposed sites: My proposed sites will be far from downtown businesses and residential area, it will never have impact on businesses and properties’ values. And our town will not suffer revenue drop from the depreciating tax base of properties on IFC’s proposed sites.

NOTE: Michael's link to the questionnaire is in .pdf format above.

Michael has the professional experience and the ability to see the effects of revitalization first hand as a resident of downtown proper. Electing Michael to the Board will ensure the growth of Pittsboro is responsible and supportive of our local artisans and community.

Citizen's petition for expedited review and changing a law - The citizen is the architectural firm selected to build the proposed Shelter

townhall.townofchapelhill.org/.../ifc_mens_shelter_petition_05.04.09.pdf

Q &A stating the lack of Public Process in site selection

townhall.townofchapelhill.org/.../1b-4-Response_from_C._Moran-IFC_Men_s_Shelter.pdf

The debate is not about the diverse communities impacted by the shelter. The debate is about whether there was a true siting process.

I implore the IFC supporters to stop trying to categorize the opposition as uninformed and show us some real information. Should faith organizations really be so judgmental?

How do the UCC families that use their childcare facilities feel about having former prisoners and a large group of men within easy walking distance of their children while they are at school?

Why is "what's good for Downtown Business" the only reason to decide on a shelter location?

Also, why are the people in favor of the shelter site unable to name good reasons to locate it at the site 2 minutes from the entrance of Homestead Park?

The side who wants to build the Homestead Park Homeless Shelter seems only able to try to categorize the residents of the Northwest Corridor as bad people.

Where are the values of empathy, dialogue and understanding for everybody?

We are asking for an impact study, full daylight process and an end to baseless attacks that are so laughable.

If the Council was as diverse as Ranbow Heights, Parkside and Vineyard Square the concerns of citizens might trump the concerns of business.

Last night I counted 10 men at 7:15 sitting outside the shelter smoking. So with this close (2 minutes along MLK) proximity to the Soccer Fields in Homestead Park what steps will be taken to ensure a healthy, smoke-free environment for the players using that park?

Dear Independent-Minded Readers, Thanks for taking the time to do your homework before heading to the polls. Have a great day. Sharon

Everyone is on the same page regarding helping the people in their needed times. While majority of these people will not bring any harm to public, multiple studies (including the one did here: Orange County Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness) have provided unarguable facts that a quite significant portion of these people do cause safety issues to the surrounding public because their uncontrollable manners (due to the mental illness, drug abuse and criminal intention). Emotion is emotion, good faith is good faith, but we have to face and deal with the reality.

I was at the public hearing last Monday about IFC’s proposal to relocate the homeless shelter to the new site. I was shocked that IFC presentation was not based on facts but on assumptions and good faiths. While several speakers from IFC sides made the statements that no incident had happened with the shelter for the past 24 years; quotes from the Chapel Hill Police Department indicated that just since January 1, 2009: 39 Police reports filed for issues at 100 West Rosemary (its current address) and 25 arrests related to 100 W. Rosemary, who are lying? These numbers could have been significantly inhibited due to public watching eyes from the crowed and busy downtown area. These numbers can easily be doubled or tripled if it moves to this proposed location. Does our town have enough resources and will plan to send patrolling policemen to every corner of the nearby streets and park to ensure the public safety? Unfortunately, IFC had made the statement that anything outside of its shelter was not its business, while the town has no plan to put any security measure for its relocation.

One strange thing I noticed in the public hearing was that community members were instructed to present no more than 15 minutes all together; while the speakers from IFC side were allowed to speak without limit and presented much longer, is it a fair process for a public hearing? And not a single newspaper or news information even mentioned it.

Another strange thing to me was that one leader form downtown businesses had claimed that this new site (far away from its current downtown site) was the best site for downtown businesses, does it translate that its current downtown location is very bad for downtown businesses? If so, how come this proposal was brought up without any impact study of the proposed new site on nearby busy park, businesses and a dozen of big neighborhoods? It also can dramatically depreciate the tax base of all these big neighborhoods’ properties, which finally will cause much bigger unexpected damage to our town future revenue. Before this relocation plan is decided, our town have to weigh the gain and loss for its relocation, we also have to answer this question: while homeless people and downtown businesses need their social justice, do the thousands of residents in this proposed site also need their social justice in additional to their current social service loads (Freedom house, women and children’s shelter, senior center, public funded housing projects, county southern human services center). Just because we are good and kind citizens, it does not mean our neighborhoods have to bear all the social burdens, it is time for other part of town to show their kindness and take their part of social responsibility.

For those who call others NIMBYs, is it your time to be WIMBYs (Welcome Into My Backyard)?

Ann,

There is nothing vague about putting every homeless shelter and resident drug detox/rehab center in a county along with one of the department of social services in 1/10th of a square mile. This constitutes inequitable distribution. One half of one percent of Chapel Hill/Carrboro's land should not contain all of these facilities.

This whole thing has been a replay of the trash transfer station siting debacle. Find a free piece of land and tell the public it has been decided. Round 2 of the transfer station was wisened up considerably to start with a list of criteria followed by an earnest look at what properties met those criteria. Had the process started with a parameterized site search to begin with, then we would be building a transfer station right now.

Had the town not excluded the citizens from the negotiation of the proposed shelter site, or had a site search been performed with public input, then perhaps the conversation right now would be about about which sites might have the most merit or perhaps how the building should look on the ideal site. Instead, what you have is materials being made available to the public for the first time at the point where the site has been designed after completely skipping the part of the process where the suitability of the site is being discussed. Anyone who follows political processes should know that hiding stuff from the public until you have a fait accompli is not a wise way to conduct business.

The mayor or somebody negotiated a backroom deal. The public was not included in this negotiation until it was announced that it was a done deal. I expect more sunshine (open records) and disclosure in our progressive community.

For the record, I stayed for the whole meeting. I cannot speak for others, but I saw parents with kids leave (this was a school night) and I also overheard someone with kids mention that they had to go help with algebra homework. I would not be so quick to judge why people left.

Unintended consequences; inequitable distribution....so vague, so broad, so predictible. How amazing that the place providing shelter and restoration for the community is in danger of being homeless itself?

When are there not unintended consequences with anything. Buying a car,getting married, picking a school, picking a home, buying food, walking out of your front door everyday. All are a part of life and all come with unintended consequences. We try to minimize consequences with accurate research and information, not with denial and by preying on generalizations.

If the intent is to create hysteria and continue to breed suspicion, then we are certainly on target here. However, I wonder if accurate details would help instead of spin and skewed facts? I wonder if it makes sense to talk to the organization versus not listening and LEAVING the hearing before everyone has spoken?

While the "concerns" are a definite recipe to protect property values, I am also pretty sure that Chapel Hill's reputation as a liberal city is definitely eroded; or maybe perhaps just exposed after decades of being able to hind behind a clearly inaccurate description.

Further, how is this situation different from any other acute case of NIMBY? Applauding the efforts of the organization and alleging to only take issue with location?? In other words, "we're glad you help people and all, just don't do any more of that in our neighborhood"....it is the same thing!

Unintended consequences can usally be minimized but never really elminated. If there is information otherwise, then how about offering some solutions (alternative locations; facilitate conversations with law enforcement; ask the organization about their intended security measures....) instead of turnkey conservative talking points and a sea of angry red shirts?

Story Published: Mar 21, 2008 at 6:11 PM EDT http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/topstories/16907391.html There's an effort to clean-up an Augusta neighborhood plagued with crime. On Wednesday, a man was shot and killed inside his home in Harrisburg. A 12-year-old boy and a man are charged with his murder. Butch Palmer has called Augusta's Harrisburg community home for all of his life. He says within the last year or so a lot has changed and not for the good. He blames it on a homeless day shelter opening in the neighborhood. "It's a known fact that homeless people are down and out on their luck. Down out and people do desperate things," Palmer said. Fed up with what he calls riff raff invading Harrisburg, Palmer formed a neighborhood organization called Hong Kong Augusta. "It's Harrisburg Organization Networking for Gentrification to Keep Our Neighborhood From Becoming A Ghetto," he said. Palmer says his group’s mission is to clean-up the neighborhood, ridding it of drugs, prostitution and homeless vagrants. He says it won't happen until the shelter is dealt with. "We'd like to see them relocated or shut down because of the negative effects," Palmer said.

Sex offenders roaming city homeless shelters Thursday, August 23rd 2007, 4:00 AM http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/08/23/2007-08-23_sex_offenders_roaming_city_homeless_shel.html Convicted sex offenders are living alongside children and their families in homeless shelters throughout the city, a report released yesterday revealed. The report - based on data collected from the state's sex offender registry - indicated that six pedophiles recently were living in family shelters in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. The offenders named in the study have all committed egregious acts against minors between 5 and 16 years old, according to the report released by state Sen. Jeff Klein (D-Bronx).

I would like to invite your attention to a study on the location of homeless shelters done by the City of Gilroy in California as per which undesirable factors for a shelter's location include nearness to another shelter, nearness to common facilities like parks, nearness to residential areas etc. all of which are applicable in the instant case.

As you are aware a large proportion of the homeless are not homeless by choice but due to other factors such as substance abuse,mental illnesses, depression, criminal behavior etc. and housing a large number of people with such behavioral tendencies in the midst of a residential area without adequate thought or planning as to how to manage other issues such as crime prevention, littering, loitering etc. would create more problems than it would solve.

Planning in a democracy is a consultative process involving the community. The community needs social services but great care and thought has to be put into its location so as to equitably serve the community without creating problems in the existing social fabric of residential areas. Disproportionate location of a large number of social service facilities in North West Chapel Hill alone would not server all the residents of Chapel Hill and we already have Freedom House and a shelter for Women as well as an Old Age Home in our neighborhood.

There are also legal, taxation and financial issues involved. Any depression in the property values would affect both homeowners and the Town adversely. There are also legal and liability issues involved in housing a large population of homeless people

The issue of race has nothing to do with our opposition to the shelter. In fact, to anyone paying attention to the presentation Monday night, we welcomed to the town hall our friends and neighbors from Rainbow Heights, a primarily African American public housing community. Parkside residents have been in close contact with Rainbow Heights residents adn that community is ALSO against the location of the shelter. They have signed the circulating petition as well. All of us--citizens of Chapel Hill--white, black, Asian and Indian--of many varying socioeconimic backgrounds--oppose the location of the shelter for three reasons: 1) its close proximity to the park and residential neighborhoods, 2) the unintended consequences it will cause, and 3)the inequitable distribution of human services it places on NW Chapel Hill. And we are concerned about 1 and 2 because there is a direct correlation between homessless and crime, substance abuse, and sever mental illness. According to the 10 yr plan to end homeless in Ornage County 30% of the homeless come from teh criminal justice system, 23% are severely mentally ill, and a whipping 37% are substance abusers. These are the people--NOT people of other races--that I do not want near my children.

First, the Homestead Park Area Homeless Shelter will be in everyone's back yard.

Second, I take great offense to the question of race brought up by one of the posters, since the Parkside neighborhood is one of the most ethnically diverse communities in the area. I am actually the only person of Western European Descent living on my section of the street. My immediate neighbors are 40% Asian and 60% African-American. So I am offended by your baseless and blatantly racist comments.

So your gross mischaracterization of the demographic make-up of this community shows a lack of understanding of the demographics of this area. It also is racist to assume that the majority homeless population in Chapel Hill is black. I don't have the demographic data, but I have seen one or two African-American Homeless people.

But thank you for pointing out the major issue. The people calling people who use Homestead Park NIMBYs don't actually live here. Most don't live in Chapel Hill from what I can tell.

The Shelter is one part of what needs to be a broad discussion and work to end Homelessness. What concerns me is that people are quick to assume that people who live in the suburbs are white, and that is the most racist thing of all.

One reason, I live in Parkside is the diversity here. We have Indian (from India), East Asian, Middle Eastern, Russian, Chinese, Korean, African-American and White people. Our community is a model for integration and racial harmony.

Perhaps, some of you should take a walk around our neighborhood and stop assuming that you know who lives in the suburbs. It's sad that a community as diverse as the Northwest part of town is being completely misrepresented by the Media and people who have never set foot in our neighborhood.

It really sounds that you are afraid that most of the homeless are a different color than you and that you do not want black people living in chapel hill. Would you be happier and feel safer if they built this shelter in Durham so that you would not have to see them. I am sure you are aware of the stats of the number of homeless of color vs. white since you are so educated. Would you be opposed to this if it was not near your home? I wonder what the homeless people will think of your comments this winter when they are freezing to death and you are in your warm home!

The film "Blood Done Sign My Name" was not filmed "last" spring. Last spring was 2009. It was filmed in 2008.

Yay Billy! Thank you for being so relentlessly creative. You're fighting the good fight.