Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

YoooJoee t1_jb7hhnq wrote

I’m happy for the success this shelter had in homeless placement but I know it’s largely a lie. I don’t like the misleading bias in the article. I own a home one street away from it. Literally a 3 minute walk.

  1. The city and council woman approved the site before public insight from the neighborhood and businesses. They did set up a public meeting afterwards but basically said they already approved it and none of our opinions will be heard (I was in the meeting).
  2. Patrols weren’t increase to prevent crime. It’s because property crime skyrocketed when the shelter opened. Myself and neighboring cars got broken into several times. They worded it; justifying the increase of incidents because they were proactive with higher patrol. It’s the other way around. They promised private security and NEVER hired it until after one volunteer at assaulted.
  3. The article states newton square got special treatment for extra street cleanings. But that’s because drug needles and trash was being discarded on the public sidewalk/streets.

They literally started to take to neighborhood safety measures after someone died there so if that’s success, cheers to them

14

Spacemage t1_jb87oik wrote

Going off this comment, and tied to the comment I posted outside of this, one of the most important things for these shelters (which need to be permanent is) is having social workers on sight.

If people are causing problems, doing drugs (depending on the community structure), and not following rules, they get removed from the housing for someone else to have an opportunity.

Not every homeless person is going to be a good person. The same way not every middle class, tax paying, hard working citizen is going to be a good person. People are excellent at self preservation and understanding consequences, so if they know they'll lose their shelter and security, it's easier to dissuade people from being shit bags when they know they have expectations.

It's a shame the city is half assing this. We gave them the blue print in how to make this work, which research and evidence.

9

YoooJoee t1_jb89jgc wrote

I 100% agree. I know my comment might make it sounds like I’m against these kind of ideas, but I’m actually all for it. It just has to be right or it’ll just cause more problems later on.

5

Spacemage t1_jb9dhns wrote

Certainly, it must be done right or it can be a disaster. I didn't take your comment as being against it, honestly. I also know that given the opportunity for the situation to be done correctly, people end up being for it. It's a weird paradox.

2

[deleted] t1_jbljn8h wrote

Unfortunately that's how a lot of shelters go. Everything you just said, it all also happened at Hotel Grace, which this shelter replaced.

And in the grand scheme, if this shelter didn't open, can you imagine 60 more people wandering out streets every night, in more desperate shape cuz they have neither this shelter nor Hotel Grace? In a way, it's sadly the lesser of two evils.

Wish I had some answers on how these sorts of problems can be addressed. The city definitely could have done better, like I don't think the blame should go to the employees or Open Sky cuz they tried their damnedest.

It's the City Councilors who try to latch their names onto this stuff and then bail, or cops who won't move a finger to patrol under almost any circumstances.

1