Wednesday, October 21, 2009
politics / Chapel Hill / Orange County More details in IFC men's shelter relocation effort
Posted by Joe Schwartz on Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Following the IFC's concept plan presentation Monday night, 15 residents, some for and some against, all passionate, the proposed site on the corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Homestead Road.
Here's what was said that didn't fit into my story, including more specifics on the timeline and the building features and a best of list for the night's comments:
- The more detailed timeline. I wrote that the special use permit application is planned for November and that construction would begin in December 2010 with occupancy set for January of 2012. Here's the IFC's full timetable:
Phase One
May 4: IFC requests expedited review and zoning text amendment of 50 beds (expidited review means this plan goes to the front of the cue, but it still goes through the same number of committees and hearings. The planning board is considering a text amendment that would allow the IFC to have a shelter with more than the current 25-bed limit.)
May 15: IFC submits concept plan
Town reviews concept plan before and after summer recess
Oct. 19: Concept plan public hearing
Nov. 2009: SUP Submittal
Phase Two
Site plan building schematic and regulatory reviews to be completed in May 2010
Phase Three
1) Predevelopment construction document reviews to be completed by October 2010
2) Funding for project to be raised by October 2010
Phase Four
1) Construction bid completed in December 2010
2) Construction from December 2010 through December 2011
3) Final inspection punch list by January 2012
Phase Five
1) Occupancy in January/February 2012
- So what would the building look like? The concept drawing for the building is posted above. What you won't see is the number of environmental features included. For instance, daylighting for the interior, solar thermal water heating, reclaimed water for toilets, air heating chamber to preheat fresh air, a transpired solar collector and impervious parking lot pavement. Beyond that, the building would include an outdoor garden area including a terrace and a space for residents to grow their own food.
-The opposition. Most striking to me was that nearly every resident who spoke against the proposed site lived nearby it, though they were quick to stress that they weren't being NIMBYs.
Tina CoyneSmith: We do not oppose your work or suggest that you are not doing extraordinary things in our commuity. We oppose the location.
(She went on to site that 23 percent of Orange County's homeless population is mentally ill, 37 percent have chronic substance abuse issues and 30 percent of the state's homeless are former prisoners.
Patrick Marlatt: I don't want to appear that we're just this suburban residents who don't want to have this homeless shelter near us. ... You ignore the things around which is pretty scary to someone like me who's trying to raise a family two or 3,000 feet away from your proposed shelter.
(The speaker both lives in the suburbs and opposes the homeless shelter.)
John Walker: We are not empathetic for people who don't take control of their own lives. We're not opposed to relocation. We're opposed to this site.
(He then said he was surprised the community was not engaged in the search and raised his hands serveral times to volunteer. Councilwoman Sally Greene directed him where to go.)
-The supporters. All who spoke were either IFC staff or volunteers or members of the United Church, which is next door to the site.
Sherman Riggsbee: i thought at lot like you prior to when I got there. A lot of hte men fallen on hard times. ... a lot of the people you see on Franklin Street are streetpeople, are the panhandlers. Those are not the people that live in the shelter and I think the people that live in the shelter, we'll be able to provide them with better service upon moving there because they'll be removed from those people."
(Riggsbee worked in the community kitchen and said he feels bad for the veterans because "I was in the military and I thnk we kind of through them away.")
Robert Seymour: When we found people sleeping in their cars or sleeping under cardboard boxes we did something about it. ... We did not chose the present locaiton (100 W. Rosemary St.). We literally backed into it because we had no other place to go. ... On a cold winter night all beds are filled and we literally ahve dozens on people sleeping on the floor. We need more space.
(The speaker is Dean Smith's pastor and a founding member of the IFC board. He walked the audience through a decade-long history of a serach for a new space explaining that no matter where they've gone, nearby residents have objected. He closed invoking FDR's famous, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" line in addressing neighbor's concerns of the homeless.)
Henry Lister: "Not once did i have an encounter a resident there (at the current Community House) who in any way made me feel that my safety was compromised. They're human beings."
(Listner is a member of the United Church and encouraged those who oppose the move to "take the hand of the United Church of Chapel Hill and walk with us as we make this a good place for this town.")
-The council response. They'd listened for an hour as residents said the above. Mayor Kevin Foy and councilmen Ed Harrison and Mark Kleinschmidt spent time praising the town's permit process, which allows for such a hearing. Harrison suggested creating a special mayor's committee to allow debate to flourish. Kleinschmidt said the interested parties need space away from the "bright lights and cameras."
Councilman Matt Czajkowski asked for data. "What the community is being asked to do is accept that there won't be any distrubtion to the community by putting the shelter at the proposed site. I would urge the IFC to find info that has data and facts and examples from other circumstances."
Colleague Laurin Easthom was similarly interested in a scientific approach, asking the IFC to show what process it used and how this site was selected above all others. (The site was provided as a gift from UNC.)
Sally Greene challenged the architect to come up with a more innovative design and called this one "generic." "I've seen your work, and you can do better," she said.
Jim Ward, the only other elected official who addressed the actual building, wanted geothermal heat pumps included.
Jim Merritt asked about the lenght of the program for men living at the site. (Laurie Tucker, the residential services coordinator for the Community House, said the program usually lasts six to eight months.)
Showing 1-8 of 8
The backyard question is interesting. Arguably, by building the Homestead Park Homeless Shelter, they are putting it in the backyard of everyone who uses Homestead Park. While the residents live nearby, everyone from Rainbow Soccer to the folks who have children in the UCC programs to the Chapel Hill Little League, Aquatics Center, Skateboarders, Dog Park users, etc. will have to deal with the overflow. Other than having a mailbox on MLK, this site is actually at the entrance of Homestead Park. Siting a homeless shelter in a Public Park is never a good idea.
I've volunteered at the shelter for several years through the Orange County Literacy Council and completely agree with Henry Listner's comment, “not once did I have an encounter a resident there (at the current Community House) who in any way made me feel that my safety was compromised." The men I've come into contact with have been polite, respectful, and grateful for the services they are receiving.
While I respect your experience as a volunteer, let's not forget that the shelter houses 52 men. The total Homeless Male population is far greater than that. The issue is what steps will be taken to mitigate the milling around at the entrance to the Homestead Park. I counted 5 men in front of the Rosemary Street Facility on Monday at 10 am. In most communities an Impact Study is done to assess the site. Where is this documentation? We did more research on changing the name of Airport Road to MLK than we have so far on this facility. Homestead Park is used by everyone. Having 5 men hanging out in front of a Park smoking cigarettes and joking would give me pause - homeless or not.
Thank you, Joe for reporting on this very important community issue. It is clear that there is significant support for the IFC's mission, but the specifics of the identified location are the concern. To suggest that there has not been a serious effort to find the most appropriate location for the men's residential facility is ignoring the facts in this matter. There have been years of efforts by numerous community members. In addition, a community group has looked at like organizations from other areas and studied their "best practices" to determine what is needed to have an effective and safe facility to provide the needed services. One of the 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. A close proximity to other social service providers is another important criterion determined for a successful program. There have been concerns expressed about "bunching" social service programs, but if instead we intentionally spread services out all over the community, we would only be adding to the challenges faced by those needing the services. As you would anticipate, transportation is a significant barrier for many requiring services. A final point I would like to make is that by actually walking from the proposed site for the men's residential facility to the park or neighborhoods, you realize that it takes a good 10 to 15 minute walk through woods, down the church driveway, and down long sidewalks to reach your destination. I would suggest that if the site criterion for this facility requires it be greater than a 15 minute walk to parks or neighborhoods......but close to public transportation and related community services, we have set ourselves up to never find a site that will be approved.
I seriously doubt there was any consideration ever of UNC's 2,000+ acres of land around Town as alternative site locations. If clustering is important as suggested why not use the County's site behind their current land on Homestead? There needs to be a logical rationale evaluation of all sites owned by the Town, County and UNC and what are good and bad criteria for locations. Particularly since the Town and County fund the IFC they have a responsibility for it larger than approving an SUP for a coffee shop
Regarding, "A final point I would like to make is that by actually walking from the proposed site for the men’s residential facility to the park or neighborhoods, you realize that it takes a good 10 to 15 minute walk through woods, down the church driveway, and down long sidewalks to reach your destination." It takes the average person 10 to 15 minutes to walk 500 feet (170 steps) downhill to the park? In fact, the park is CLOSER than the bus stop. Please check your facts. Regarding, "There have been concerns expressed about “bunching” social service programs, but if instead we intentionally spread services out all over the community, we would only be adding to the challenges faced by those needing the services." The homeless men need to be in the same 1/10th of a mile as the drug detox/rehab facility and the women's shelter and public housing? The proposed facility includes a medical clinic and no other medical facilities are nearby. The only nearby "related" social service is DSS. The other nearby social services do not benefit the residents of the mens homeless shelter. This is a specious argument.
I think we had too much assumptions and misleading statements (or politely call it lies under good faiths to comfort people’s concern?). It takes less than 10 minutes to walk around the park and you claimed it will take 10-15 minutes to reach it? Literally, it will take 10 seconds to bump into the soccer field in the park from this proposed site. Have you ever been to this place? I will be happily to show you the way. The most concern to me is not he residents inside the shelter, but the folks who come to the site and won’t be able to get into the shelter? Will you guarantee to send them somewhere so they will not end up in the park and someone’s backyard woods, or it is not your business?
ear 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 criterion. 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.
Multimedia
Our Blogs
Comments (8) RSS