Chapel Hill Herald, Jan 9, 2005, by Rob Shepard

CHAPEL HILL -- Another group of local residents is saying
they don't want a new homeless shelter for men anywhere
near their neighborhood.

A petition from 20 residents in the Legion Road area is on
the Town Council's agenda for Monday. The petition asks
the council to squash any talk of placing a shelter along
that road.

Lynne Kane, a resident of The Meadows off Legion Road,
said she and the 19 other petition signers, as well as others,
hope the idea doesn't go any further.

"People are outraged," Kane said. "That's the basic reaction.
[A shelter] just doesn't belong in a residential area."

Residents of The Meadows, a subdivision with 56 homes,
and the adjacent, eight-home Turnberry are among the
petitioners. They said they were "appalled" at the notion of
a shelter near private residences, and listed seven reasons
for their opposition.

Among those reasons were their contention that many of the
men in the current shelter were substance abusers, and that
"substance-abusers are a nuisance, and sometimes a danger,
to adults, children and businesses."

Natalie Ammarell, chairwoman of strategic development for
the board of the Inter-Faith Council for Social Services,
which runs the current men's homeless shelter on West
Rosemary Street, said Friday that she hadn't seen the letter
and petition Kane submitted.

"Frankly, whatever neighborhood we might look at property
in, we would expect there would be some concerns,"
Ammarell said. "We're looking forward to working with
neighbors, wherever we may end up."

The IFC hopes eventually to move the shelter from West
Rosemary Street, but the charity has not formally proposed
anything for Legion Road or any other site. The IFC wants
the future facility to provide more than dormitory-style,
emergency housing for homeless men, although such housing
would be included.

Last year, Town Manager Cal Horton mentioned town-owned
property on Legion Road as a site that might merit future
consideration for a shelter, as well as the town's new
operations center on Millhouse Road. The town owns the
building where the shelter and kitchen are located now.

The nonprofit IFC said last month it wanted to learn more
about the Legion Road property, which is across from the
Chapel Hill Memorial Cemetery. The council approved the
IFC's request to authorize Horton to talk with the group about
that property, and they had one meeting in recent weeks,
said Ammarell.

The IFC had a purchase option for several months last year
on about 4 acres along Merritt Mill Road. The group did
initial studies of the topography and other features of that
property. Although the IFC concluded that the Merritt Mill
land would be suitable for the type of facility it wants to build
and has not ruled out that site, it allowed its purchase option
to expire without buying the land.

Residents in the Merritt Mill area sharply criticized the IFC
for even considering building a shelter there, arguing that
it would be an unsafe and unwelcome addition to their
neighborhood.

"I can't blame the people on Merritt Mill Road," Kane said.

But, Ammarell said, any new facility "would be very, very
different from what people know to be downtown."

Other issues mentioned by the petitioners included the
presence of PACE Academy, a new charter school that
opened last year on Legion Road. Meadows and Turnberry
residents raised some objections to the school, which they
felt might adversely affect traffic and parking in the area.

The perition also mentions the affordable-housing project
at Legion Road and Scarlett Drive, which many neighbor-
hood residents fiercely opposed, as a reason that a new
shelter on Legion Road would be a bad idea.

"That has turned out to be a neat, quiet place," Kane
said about the townhomes. "We were afraid that maybe
there'd be lots of boomboxes and cars without mufflers,
but people have come in with pride in ownership."

The petitioners further noted the presence of hotels and
other businesses in the Legion Road area, and argued
that a homeless shelter would hurt property values for
residents and businesses. They said one resident, who
takes the bus to and from work, expressed concern about
waiting for the bus at a stop where "homeless males"
would be grouped.

Finally, they argued that, with the nearby cemetery filling
up, the town should hold on to the Legion Road land for
future grave plots.

While noting that the IFC does not yet have a timetable
for building a new facility, Ammarell said the organization
wants to get the same type of topographical and other
information on the Legion Road property as it did for the
Merritt Mill Road site.

The facility the IFC hopes to build ideally would have a
"continuum of housing," said Chris Moran, the IFC's
executive director. Men would live in an emergency
shelter initially and then "earn" their way into other
types of housing on the site.

As the men reached goals, they'd have the chance to
move into living quarters with perhaps five other residents,
then with fewer roommates, until they were able to live
more independently. The final step might be some form
of "efficiency apartment, permanent-housing arrangement,"
Ammarell said.

"Whether or not that would occur on this site is totally
up in the air," she said. "We don't know what that would
look like, [but] that would have to be in cooperation with
other agencies."

Ammarell agreed that substance abuse is a problem for
many of the IFC's clients. At the same time, she said,
"The entire population is full of substance abusers.
They're a nuisance to a lot of people. Our goal is to
work with people on the issues they, whatever those
may be."

Moran said he wasn't surprised or disheartened by the
petition.

"But I remain disappointed for two basic reasons," he
said.

"I know that we need to do more in educating [on]
who homeless people are, and I know that people don't
fully understand how well we manage these programs.
I'm never going to be surprised if someone expresses
opposition from their neighborhood. In my judgment,
it's primarily due to fear, that individuals don't truly
understand who these folks are, that they are not
necessarily dangerous, and that we do handle these
situations well and staff members are well trained to
keep them safe."

Moran said he hoped anyone with concerns would
come directly to IFC leaders.

"I always want to ask the question to [opponents],
'How do you want to serve this population, rather
than to say not in my neighborhood?' Are they
expecting another neighborhood to feel differently
than they feel?"

"We have nothing to hide," he said. "We're very
proud of what we do, and we will continue to fight
for those we serve, because they are worthy of
better services and accommodations."
=======================================

Dealing with the homeless problem by centralizing it
and throwing money at it would be my second choice.
My first choice would be to rescind the laws that
suppress the low-end of the housing market, and
stop suppressing the low-end of the job market by
abolishing the minimum-wage laws. This would
allow more people to be involved in dealing on
the problem.

=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================

From:	Bibliophilia
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	20 Jan 2005 13:11:37 -0800

Oh, well, there we go again, Kristian, with that one-mattress-fits-all
fallacy. XD

Some homeless people are on drugs, some are seriously mentally ill,
some slightly mentally ill, some just are not adjusted to standard
societal living.

One solution will not fit all of the homeless.

In the US, to take care of the seriously mentally ill contingent, money
would have to be poored back into the mental health care system, and
that hasn't happened in the 20 years since they opened up the nuthouses
and just freed em like pidgeons, to go roost in the metropolitan areas.
There is no solution for the mentally ill that doesn't involve more
dollars for mental health care. Except to shoot em, I guess. Or, like
was suggested, just starve em til they die.

For the drug addicted, yeah, they need to *want* to stop using or
drinking, but some people don't. So, what, let em starve because
they've been *bad*. Oh, man. That sounds like a terrible idea to me.
That's class warfare, you all know it. Rush Limbaugh gets caught with
a pocket full of pills, no problem, he has a disease, but some guy from
a low SES group with no education, he is morally to blame for his drug
problem.

If the government wants a one-size fits all for that sub-section of the
homeless, the willfully drug addicted, then they need to include
penalties for those addicted to booze, cigs, and food. Only they won't
do that, because so many of the booze, cigs and food addicts aren't
homeless and poor - they look like Rush. They look like *us.*

The problem is complex, therefore the solution has to have many arms,
to come at it from many angles, to serve the disparate groups within
the homeless community. And no class warfare, please.

And I say this as someone who would have a freak out if they put a wet
homeless shelter down the block. So I understand the class snobbery
impulse, but I still think it's abhorent, even in myself.

From:	David James Polewka
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:47:45 GMT

"Bibliophilia" wrote:

>Some homeless people are on drugs, some are seriously mentally ill,
>some slightly mentally ill, some just are not adjusted to standard
>societal living.

And some would be just fine if they could get a job
and place to live. Why continue to suppress the
low-end of the job and housing markets?

=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================

From:	anon
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 23:17:53 -0500

"David James Polewka" wrote in message
news:41f1cd7b.25479599@news.east.earthlink.net...
> "Bibliophilia" wrote:
>
>>Some homeless people are on drugs, some are seriously mentally ill,
>>some slightly mentally ill, some just are not adjusted to standard
>>societal living.
>
> And some would be just fine if they could get a job
> and place to live. Why continue to suppress the
> low-end of the job and housing markets?
>
why did the majority of citizens want to have the poll tax if not to deny
certain people decent life?

From:	imbibe at mindspring.com
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	21 Jan 2005 23:23:30 -0800

anon wrote:

> why did the majority of citizens want to
> have the poll tax if not to deny
> certain people decent life?
The path to peace is the Golden Rule!
..
..
--

From:	Kent Paul Dolan
Subject:	[the ungolden rule]: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:52:43 +0000 (UTC)

"David James Polewka" wrote:

> anon wrote:

>> why did the majority of citizens want to have the
>> poll tax if not to deny certain people decent
>> life?

> The path to peace is the Golden Rule!

You'll have to learn to ignore poor, demented David,
who burned out most of his brain on alcohol, then
got "brainlesswashed" into a simplistic religion in
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, one of the venues
where the hucksters of gods take advantage of the
mind-distressed to sell their theistic nonsense in
a sellers' market filled with buyers with no remnant
capacity for critical thought.

David spouts these little ritual noises, as above,
whenever his mindless muddled musings run into the
harsh exegencies of the real world, and he has no
answer to give to cover his gaffes.

David's _real_ idea of "the golden rule?"

Get off the planet, all you useless losers (but
no, this advice doesn't apply to David James
Polewka, loser among losers)

Bring back starvation wages and substandard
housing (but not for DJP, he's got it made)

Get rid of "gummint", ignoring that the lack of
functioning government, in, say Mexico is what
supports police corruption (no working government
to correct it) and leads to citizens lynching
suspected criminals in the city streets (no trust
that a weak court system can provide justice),
and to grinding poverty (weak education and job
creation tools in a weak government) and thus to
the desire to flee to a chance of a better life.

Now, David's gone trolling for homeless bashers
again, and dragged some more of these mindless,
worthless losers in his train back to talk.bizarre.

Compare the amoral attitudes of these losers with
the actions of people with a better moral
upbringing:

"Pall-bearers laid Moshammer's mahogany coffin,
decked with lilies, roses and red carnations,
beside that of his mother at the family's
columned mausoleum. Around 400 homeless people
were then treated to a funeral feast."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyID=2005-01-22T150423Z_01_N22455924_RTRIDST_0_ENTERTAINMENT-PEOPLE-GERMANY-DESIGNER-DC.XML

Notice that it is not the mourners, who can well
afford to pay for their own meals, who feasted, but
the homeless, who will have more reason to remember
the deceased than any.

_That_ is what a "golden rule" would look like in
use. Too bad that in David's mind, the "golden rule"
merely translates to "gimme, gimme, gimme", as in
his ongoing attempts to cause his father's early
demise to score an early inheritance for David.

And of course, going back to the original topic, the
NIMBYism David supports is the precise opposite of
the "golden rule" he pretends to respect.

HTH

xanthian.

Chapel Hill was full of rednecks when I went to
school there, too. Nice to see neither prosperity
nor the turn of a new millennium have changed its
old fashioned values a single bit.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

From:	Steven Lee Pearson
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	23 Jan 2005 11:15:29 -0600

imbibe@mindspring.com wrote in news:1106378610.526667.36760
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>> why did the majority of citizens want to
>> have the poll tax if not to deny
>> certain people decent life?
> The path to peace is the Golden Rule!

only if the golden rule is changed to "bend over and take it".

- stevelee -

From:	Kent Paul Dolan
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:42:28 +0000 (UTC)

"Steven Lee Pearson" wrote:

> only if the golden rule is changed to "bend over and take it".
> - stevelee -

Welcome back. Haven't heard from Sue in a while.

xanthian.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

From:	Bibliophilia
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	22 Jan 2005 08:37:35 -0800

>Many teens don't get hired because they're not
worth the minimum wage. Why shut them out?

Teens are a sub population of the homeless, but not the majority of it.
The main beneficiaries in the teen world would be mall rats - mall
rats have parents with jobs, and housing already.

>They're fleeing their homeland because the gummint
is even MORE intrusive there!

Red herring. I was not trying to solve the illegal immigration problem
here, I was using the illegals as a concrete example of what happens to
workers when there is no wage floor.

>Because the floor for housing is still in place!

You're making a funny, right?

Housing costs rise, not fall. Governmental rent control exists to
keep costs down, not up. Those in the upper classes will charge the
highest rent they can get away with.

Please elucidate the exactly mechanism under which someone who owns
apartments would have an incentive to rent them for less, not more.
Other than, say, getting tax incentives or vouchers from the gummint.

What specifically are you proposing, other than "no govt", and how
would it work.

From:	David James Polewka
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:18:05 GMT

joseywales@outlaw.nospam (David James Polewka) wrote:

>Chapel Hill Herald, Jan 9, 2005, by Rob Shepard
>
>CHAPEL HILL -- Another group of local residents is saying
>they don't want a new homeless shelter for men anywhere
>near their neighborhood.

Dealing with the homeless problem by centralizing it
and throwing money at it would be my second choice.
My first choice would be to rescind the laws that
suppress the low-end of the housing market, and
stop suppressing the low-end of the job market by
abolishing the minimum-wage laws. This would
allow more people to be involved in dealing on
the problem.

=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================

From:	Kent Paul Dolan
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Wed, 19 Jan 2005 08:27:31 +0000 (UTC)

"David James Polewka" wrote:

> Dealing with the homeless problem by centralizing it
> and throwing money at it would be my second choice.
> My first choice would be to rescind the laws that
> suppress the low-end of the housing market, and
> stop suppressing the low-end of the job market by
> abolishing the minimum-wage laws. This would
> allow more people to be involved in dealing on
> the problem.

You really didn't need to repeat your Libertarian idiocy,
I ignored it quite competently the first time you said it.

HTH

xanthian.

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

From:	Bibliophilia
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	21 Jan 2005 20:16:08 -0800

Well, sure. But you can't let the unfettered market set wages, because
when allowed to do this, it tends to take advantage of the underclass.
Ask all those illegal aliens if you get paid a living wage when you
have no legal protection for your wages? Ask those guys where one guy
rents the apartment and then 15 guys come there in the morning to
shower and shave because none of them can afford to live here, really.
Craziness.

Can we be sure that if we remove the floor for wages that we don't get
the unintended effect that more people fall below the wage level that
allows them to keep housing. Which is what we are aiming for, yes?

From:	imbibe at mindspring.com
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	21 Jan 2005 23:19:50 -0800

Bibliophilia wrote:

> Well, sure. But you can't let the unfettered
> market set wages, because when allowed to do this,
> it tends to take advantage of the underclass.

Many teens don't get hired because they're not
worth the minimum wage. Why shut them out?

> Ask all those illegal aliens if you get paid a
> living wage when you have no legal protection for
> your wages?

They're fleeing their homeland because the gummint
is even MORE intrusive there! We need to set the
example here, to show 'em how it's done!

> Ask those guys where one guy rents the apartment
> and then 15 guys come there in the morning to
> shower and shave because none of them can afford
> to live here, really. Craziness.

Because the floor for housing is still in place!

> Can we be sure that if we remove the floor for wages
> that we don't get the unintended effect that more
> people fall below the wage level that allows them to
> keep housing. Which is what we are aiming for, yes?
Remove the job floor AND the housing floor, yes?
..
..
--

From:	Jim Blair
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:31:56 -0600

"David James Polewka" wrote in message
news:41ed54ca.9592903@news.east.earthlink.net...
> Chapel Hill Herald, Jan 9, 2005, by Rob Shepard
>
> CHAPEL HILL -- Another group of local residents is saying
> they don't want a new homeless shelter for men anywhere
> near their neighborhood.
>
.....
>
> Among those reasons were their contention that many of the
> men in the current shelter were substance abusers, and that
> "substance-abusers are a nuisance, and sometimes a danger,
> to adults, children and businesses."

Hi,

The current "homeless debate" in Madison is over building a "wet shelter"
for drunks and druggies. There is currently enough room in homeless
shelters, but some are run by churches or other organizations that require
people to be sober if they want to stay there.

Here it is considered a violation of civil rights to require people to
sober up or not be high on drugs when they ask you to give them free
shelter. But since we have not yet expanded the local anti-discrimination
laws to protect the drunk and stoned, there is a push to build them a
special shelter.

......
>
> Dealing with the homeless problem by centralizing it
> and throwing money at it would be my second choice.
> My first choice would be to rescind the laws that
> suppress the low-end of the housing market, and
> stop suppressing the low-end of the job market by
> abolishing the minimum-wage laws. This would
> allow more people to be involved in dealing on
> the problem.
>
>
But that would deal only with the "affordable housing" aspect of the
problem. But much of the homeless problem is not affordable housing but
behavior. Remember the company that gave cash to homeless people to take
part in some kind of study? They were criticized for being irresponsible
and of harming the homeless by paying them in cash, because that just
enabled them to buy more alcohol and drugs, making their problems worse.

This gets back to the old Milton Friedman vs Oscar Lewis debate. Are people
poor because they lack money? Or do they lack money because they live in a
culture of poverty?

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/poverty.txt

,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834

From:	David James Polewka
Subject:	Re: Residents say no to men's homeless shelter
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:41:03 GMT

"Jim Blair" wrote:

>"David James Polewka" wrote:
>
>> Chapel Hill Herald, Jan 9, 2005, by Rob Shepard
>>
>> CHAPEL HILL -- Another group of local residents is saying
>> they don't want a new homeless shelter for men anywhere
>> near their neighborhood.
>>....
>> Among those reasons were their contention that many of the
>> men in the current shelter were substance abusers, and that
>> "substance-abusers are a nuisance, and sometimes a danger,
>> to adults, children and businesses."
>
>Hi,
>
>The current "homeless debate" in Madison is over building a "wet shelter"
>for drunks and druggies. There is currently enough room in homeless
>shelters, but some are run by churches or other organizations that require
>people to be sober if they want to stay there.
>
>Here it is considered a violation of civil rights to require people to
>sober up or not be high on drugs when they ask you to give them free
>shelter. But since we have not yet expanded the local anti-discrimination
>laws to protect the drunk and stoned, there is a push to build them a
>special shelter.

Protecting addicts from the consequences of their actions by giving them
what they want is called "enabling" (as you cited below). It enables
them to continue in their sickness. Everyone in the recovery business
knows that. That's why I wrote a letter last year saying the IFC could
cut costs by eliminating their kitchen--just give the addicts bread and
water.

>.....
>>
>> Dealing with the homeless problem by centralizing it
>> and throwing money at it would be my second choice.
>> My first choice would be to rescind the laws that
>> suppress the low-end of the housing market, and
>> stop suppressing the low-end of the job market by
>> abolishing the minimum-wage laws. This would
>> allow more people to be involved in dealing on
>> the problem.
>>
>>
>But that would deal only with the "affordable housing" aspect of the
>problem. But much of the homeless problem is not affordable housing but
>behavior. Remember the company that gave cash to homeless people to take
>part in some kind of study? They were criticized for being irresponsible
>and of harming the homeless by paying them in cash, because that just
>enabled them to buy more alcohol and drugs, making their problems worse.

I think decentralizing the thing would go a long way, because when
they're in groups, whether in prison or on the streets, they tend to
compare notes on the "tricks of the trade."

>This gets back to the old Milton Friedman vs Oscar Lewis debate. Are people
>poor because they lack money? Or do they lack money because they live in a
>culture of poverty?
>
>http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/poverty.txt

The 12-step meetings are everywhere, so they always have the
option of getting into recovery. Surrender doesn't typically
occur until the addict hits his "bottom." It would help if more
people knew about recovery and addiction.

=========================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=========================