MikeTed | Indy Week

MikeTed 
Member since Oct 23, 2009


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “More details in IFC men's shelter relocation effort

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.

Posted by Mike Ted on 10/24/2009 at 2:36 PM

Re: “Chapel Hill NIMBYs oppose new homeless shelter site

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 dont know it (IFC leaders, please tell us the truth if you know it). Lets 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 IFCs findings was that separating the residential services from the food services would provide improvements to both. The separation of the mens 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 IFCs 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 IFCs proposed sites.

Posted by MikeTed on 10/24/2009 at 2:19 PM

Re: “More details in IFC men's shelter relocation effort

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?

Posted by Mike Ted on 10/24/2009 at 1:02 AM

Re: “Chapel Hill NIMBYs oppose new homeless shelter site

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 IFCs 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 childrens 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)?

Posted by MikeTed on 10/24/2009 at 12:04 AM

Extra Extra!

Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.

  • Weekly Newsletter (Wednesday) - The stories in this week's issue
  • Weekly Events Newsletter - Our picks for your weekend and beyond

Login to choose
your subscriptions!

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2017 Indy Week • 320 E. Chapel Hill St., Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation