|
Post by oriolesfan on Aug 26, 2014 6:53:50 GMT -4
Soooooo?
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Aug 26, 2014 7:15:07 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by KITransplant on Aug 26, 2014 9:21:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by pineapple head on Aug 26, 2014 9:37:10 GMT -4
It was an extremely long presentation before the public comment period started, as the Shelter team tried to address every predictable and documented issue and concern. The crowd was large, and appeared to be weighted heavilly on the side of button-wearing shelter supporters -- which I attribute heavilly to the successful hype campaign on the Facebook "Save Our Stevensville" page (and elsewhere) having motivated the defenders to make an unprecedented show of force. Nearly everyone was courteous and cooperative, although I doubt many people experienced a change in opinion as a result. Those who were concerned or opposed to the project spoke plainly and with obvious emotion about their fears and concerns, as did the large crowd of supporters. (And I'd happilly call out OscarsDad4 for setting a tone by his own example: calm, focused and effective at delivering his concerns in a constructive and courteous manner in person.) I suspect some of the detractors left the meeting feeling a bit overwhelmed or disheartened by the force of the supporters that were motivated to show up in defense of the shelter. There is no conspiracy, just a very motivated community. Frankly, I was shocked -- I'd argue it was refreshing and reassuring to see so many people who care so much about a charitable, volunteer-driven service effort. They are additional proof of the special community serving and served by this shelter. The common ground for everyone in attendance was support for the Shelter mission and compassionate interest in our community -- if that can be the thread to connect the opposing groups then there is a lot of room for cooperation and progress as a result of last night's discussion. As I said before, I understand the fear and concerns of the neighbors who are not familar with the Shelter operation and the guests served ... and last night it was apparent that those who have been involved as volunteers have been reassured and fulfilled. I understand that the opposition will probably continue to focus on opposing the State Street shelter location, as is certainly their right. (I just hope that it can be done in a way that is, to quote OscarsDad4, decent.) However, I'd like to see them also focus on an alternative approach: assuming (without conceding) that the project will move forward as proposed, let's carefully detail the questions that still need to be answered and details that need to be documented, and get involved to help shape the progress and processes in ways that would help to mitigate fears and concerns -- let's at least attempt to confront the fears head-on, constructively, and rationally. The meeting is apparently to be aired on QATV, so watch and decide for yourself. The outcome will be determined by the response today and into the future. If those opposed to the Shelter retrench into anger and conspiracy theories, then unfortunately there will have been little progress. If they now perhaps have some nagging doubts, some cautious-if-guarded optimism that the new facility may deliver on all promises and be a beneficial presence, then there is hope for progress. If some of the detractors involve themself with the shelter, testing their assumptions and convictions, I'm convinced that many of their fears will be soothed and the postures that result will no longer be offensive and defensive but instead open and cooperative, supportive and compromising.
|
|
|
Post by Workingman on Aug 26, 2014 10:21:34 GMT -4
It was an extremely long presentation before the public comment period started, as the Shelter team tried to address every predictable and documented issue and concern. The crowd was large, and appeared to be weighted heavilly on the side of button-wearing shelter supporters -- which I attribute heavilly to the successful hype campaign on the Facebook "Save Our Stevensville" page (and elsewhere) having motivated the defenders to make an unprecedented show of force. Nearly everyone was courteous and cooperative, although I doubt many people experienced a change in opinion as a result. Those who were concerned or opposed to the project spoke plainly and with obvious emotion about their fears and concerns, as did the large crowd of supporters. (And I'd happilly call out OscarsDad4 for setting a tone by his own example: calm, focused and effective at delivering his concerns in a constructive and courteous manner in person.) I suspect some of the detractors left the meeting feeling a bit overwhelmed or disheartened by the force of the supporters that were motivated to show up in defense of the shelter. There is no conspiracy, just a very motivated community. Frankly, I was shocked -- I'd argue it was refreshing and reassuring to see so many people who care so much about a charitable, volunteer-driven service effort. They are additional proof of the special community serving and served by this shelter. The common ground for everyone in attendance was support for the Shelter mission and compassionate interest in our community -- if that can be the thread to connect the opposing groups then there is a lot of room for cooperation and progress as a result of last night's discussion. As I said before, I understand the fear and concerns of the neighbors who are not familar with the Shelter operation and the guests served ... and last night it was apparent that those who have been involved as volunteers have been reassured and fulfilled. I understand that the opposition will probably continue to focus on opposing the State Street shelter location, as is certainly their right. (I just hope that it can be done in a way that is, to quote OscarsDad4, decent.) However, I'd like to see them also focus on an alternative approach: assuming (without conceding) that the project will move forward as proposed, let's carefully detail the questions that still need to be answered and details that need to be documented, and get involved to help shape the progress and processes in ways that would help to mitigate fears and concerns -- let's at least attempt to confront the fears head-on, constructively, and rationally. The meeting is apparently to be aired on QATV, so watch and decide for yourself. The outcome will be determined by the response today and into the future. If those opposed to the Shelter retrench into anger and conspiracy theories, then unfortunately there will have been little progress. If they now perhaps have some nagging doubts, some cautious-if-guarded optimism that the new facility may deliver on all promises and be a beneficial presence, then there is hope for progress. If some of the detractors involve themself with the shelter, testing their assumptions and convictions, I'm convinced that many of their fears will be soothed and the postures that result will no longer be offensive and defensive but instead open and cooperative, supportive and compromising. Nope, I'm sorry I still have concerns about this shelter. The answers given to a lot of the questions were not settling because of just how vague they were. "We didn't have to post for public view because it was not a certain grant or in a certain zone" does not sit well with me. There were two people from Stevensville that were for this shleter, the rest where from outside of Stevensville. They are happy because it's not in their backyard and their children will not be around this site on a daily basis. There was one gentleman who said, "if a mistake happens, we will deal with it" well let that mistake happen by him not my house our family. I'm sorry but I still have concerns and they were just not eased last night..
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 26, 2014 10:24:08 GMT -4
It was an extremely long presentation before the public comment period started, as the Shelter team tried to address every predictable and documented issue and concern. The crowd was large, and appeared to be weighted heavilly on the side of button-wearing shelter supporters -- which I attribute heavilly to the successful hype campaign on the Facebook "Save Our Stevensville" page (and elsewhere) having motivated the defenders to make an unprecedented show of force. Nearly everyone was courteous and cooperative, although I doubt many people experienced a change in opinion as a result. Those who were concerned or opposed to the project spoke plainly and with obvious emotion about their fears and concerns, as did the large crowd of supporters. (And I'd happilly call out OscarsDad4 for setting a tone by his own example: calm, focused and effective at delivering his concerns in a constructive and courteous manner in person.) I suspect some of the detractors left the meeting feeling a bit overwhelmed or disheartened by the force of the supporters that were motivated to show up in defense of the shelter. There is no conspiracy, just a very motivated community. Frankly, I was shocked -- I'd argue it was refreshing and reassuring to see so many people who care so much about a charitable, volunteer-driven service effort. They are additional proof of the special community serving and served by this shelter. The common ground for everyone in attendance was support for the Shelter mission and compassionate interest in our community -- if that can be the thread to connect the opposing groups then there is a lot of room for cooperation and progress as a result of last night's discussion. As I said before, I understand the fear and concerns of the neighbors who are not familar with the Shelter operation and the guests served ... and last night it was apparent that those who have been involved as volunteers have been reassured and fulfilled. I understand that the opposition will probably continue to focus on opposing the State Street shelter location, as is certainly their right. (I just hope that it can be done in a way that is, to quote OscarsDad4, decent.) However, I'd like to see them also focus on an alternative approach: assuming (without conceding) that the project will move forward as proposed, let's carefully detail the questions that still need to be answered and details that need to be documented, and get involved to help shape the progress and processes in ways that would help to mitigate fears and concerns -- let's at least attempt to confront the fears head-on, constructively, and rationally. The meeting is apparently to be aired on QATV, so watch and decide for yourself. The outcome will be determined by the response today and into the future. If those opposed to the Shelter retrench into anger and conspiracy theories, then unfortunately there will have been little progress. If they now perhaps have some nagging doubts, some cautious-if-guarded optimism that the new facility may deliver on all promises and be a beneficial presence, then there is hope for progress. If some of the detractors involve themself with the shelter, testing their assumptions and convictions, I'm convinced that many of their fears will be soothed and the postures that result will no longer be offensive and defensive but instead open and cooperative, supportive and compromising. Pretty good recap... I must say, the ministry supporters in the front of the room (approximatley 5 rows) all showed up early after a congregation prayer session. Good to see the 13 congregations support each other so strongly, but they were seemingly purposefully intimidating when presenting. There was eye rolling, comments, and I was glared at for the last hour of the comment period by at least 6 or 7 people; my wife and I were even pointed at and called out for having fears that were unjust. It was not comfortable. Regardless, I think the meeting showed the public notification process of today is insufficient. I've spoken with Gregg Todd since the meeting and he has promised to propose a dedicated section on the QACTV website that is used solely for listing public hearings. This will give people one consistent place to refer to in order to keep up with public hearings, rather than having to search the bay times, the start democrat, QACTV news section, etc... So, that's a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by KITransplant on Aug 26, 2014 11:02:05 GMT -4
It was an extremely long presentation before the public comment period started, as the Shelter team tried to address every predictable and documented issue and concern. The crowd was large, and appeared to be weighted heavilly on the side of button-wearing shelter supporters -- which I attribute heavilly to the successful hype campaign on the Facebook "Save Our Stevensville" page (and elsewhere) having motivated the defenders to make an unprecedented show of force. Nearly everyone was courteous and cooperative, although I doubt many people experienced a change in opinion as a result. Those who were concerned or opposed to the project spoke plainly and with obvious emotion about their fears and concerns, as did the large crowd of supporters. (And I'd happilly call out OscarsDad4 for setting a tone by his own example: calm, focused and effective at delivering his concerns in a constructive and courteous manner in person.) I suspect some of the detractors left the meeting feeling a bit overwhelmed or disheartened by the force of the supporters that were motivated to show up in defense of the shelter. There is no conspiracy, just a very motivated community. Frankly, I was shocked -- I'd argue it was refreshing and reassuring to see so many people who care so much about a charitable, volunteer-driven service effort. They are additional proof of the special community serving and served by this shelter. The common ground for everyone in attendance was support for the Shelter mission and compassionate interest in our community -- if that can be the thread to connect the opposing groups then there is a lot of room for cooperation and progress as a result of last night's discussion. As I said before, I understand the fear and concerns of the neighbors who are not familar with the Shelter operation and the guests served ... and last night it was apparent that those who have been involved as volunteers have been reassured and fulfilled. I understand that the opposition will probably continue to focus on opposing the State Street shelter location, as is certainly their right. (I just hope that it can be done in a way that is, to quote OscarsDad4, decent.) However, I'd like to see them also focus on an alternative approach: assuming (without conceding) that the project will move forward as proposed, let's carefully detail the questions that still need to be answered and details that need to be documented, and get involved to help shape the progress and processes in ways that would help to mitigate fears and concerns -- let's at least attempt to confront the fears head-on, constructively, and rationally. The meeting is apparently to be aired on QATV, so watch and decide for yourself. The outcome will be determined by the response today and into the future. If those opposed to the Shelter retrench into anger and conspiracy theories, then unfortunately there will have been little progress. If they now perhaps have some nagging doubts, some cautious-if-guarded optimism that the new facility may deliver on all promises and be a beneficial presence, then there is hope for progress. If some of the detractors involve themself with the shelter, testing their assumptions and convictions, I'm convinced that many of their fears will be soothed and the postures that result will no longer be offensive and defensive but instead open and cooperative, supportive and compromising. Pretty good recap... I must say, the ministry supporters in the front of the room (approximatley 5 rows) all showed up early after a congregation prayer session. Good to see the 13 congregations support each other so strongly, but they were seemingly purposefully intimidating when presenting. There was eye rolling, comments, and I was glared at for the last hour of the comment period by at least 6 or 7 people; my wife and I were even pointed at and called out for having fears that were unjust. It was not comfortable. Regardless, I think the meeting showed the public notification process of today is insufficient. I've spoken with Gregg Todd since the meeting and he has promised to propose a dedicated section on the QACTV website that is used solely for listing public hearings. This will give people one consistent place to refer to in order to keep up with public hearings, rather than having to search the bay times, the start democrat, QACTV news section, etc... So, that's a good thing. Don't take the eye rolling, glaring, and pointing personally--that's just Presbyterians being Presbyterians. Don't fault them--they were just predestined to act that way.
|
|
dan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by dan on Aug 26, 2014 11:27:08 GMT -4
Regardless, I think the meeting showed the public notification process of today is insufficient. I've spoken with Gregg Todd since the meeting and he has promised to propose a dedicated section on the QACTV website that is used solely for listing public hearings. This will give people one consistent place to refer to in order to keep up with public hearings, rather than having to search the bay times, the start democrat, QACTV news section, etc... So, that's a good thing. I think that an overflow crowd would indicate to me that adequate notice was given for the information session. Too bad you were unable to muster as many troops as the supporters of this project.
|
|
|
Post by KITransplant on Aug 26, 2014 11:36:07 GMT -4
Regardless, I think the meeting showed the public notification process of today is insufficient. I've spoken with Gregg Todd since the meeting and he has promised to propose a dedicated section on the QACTV website that is used solely for listing public hearings. This will give people one consistent place to refer to in order to keep up with public hearings, rather than having to search the bay times, the start democrat, QACTV news section, etc... So, that's a good thing. I think that an overflow crowd would indicate to me that adequate notice was given for the information session. Too bad you were unable to muster as many troops as the supporters of this project. My read is that OscarsDad's concern was never about whether there was adequate notice for the information session that was held last night, it was whether there was adequate notice at points in time previously. OscarsDad must be kicking himself that he doesn't have a congregation that joins him on field trips.
|
|
|
Post by crabbymom on Aug 26, 2014 11:47:18 GMT -4
My son & I were called up by Krista last night to speak about our volunteer experiences. I live in Cloverfields, and I have four children. We use the trail, the park, and the schools. Currently, the house next door to me has been vacant for going on two years.
My neighbor was a drug user,and the police were called to the house on several occasions. I would much prefer a shelter as a neighbor than a drug house or a vacant, rodent infested hovel. When we volunteer at the shelter and food pantry, I am also responsible for my Youth Group kids (ranging in age from 5th - 12th grades). The safety of children in my care is my number one priority. We have never had any sort of incident with the Shelter guests.
Rural homelessness is much different than urban homelessness, and Queen Anne's County is not Anne Arundel County or Baltimore City. As a volunteer, I can tell you firsthand, the homeless wait on you in fast food restaurants, grocery stores and gas stations. They sit in the same pews as you in Church. They go to school with your children.
Please volunteer at the Food Pantry and the Shelter and see for yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Aug 26, 2014 11:49:26 GMT -4
Regardless, I think the meeting showed the public notification process of today is insufficient. I've spoken with Gregg Todd since the meeting and he has promised to propose a dedicated section on the QACTV website that is used solely for listing public hearings. This will give people one consistent place to refer to in order to keep up with public hearings, rather than having to search the bay times, the start democrat, QACTV news section, etc... So, that's a good thing. I think that an overflow crowd would indicate to me that adequate notice was given for the information session. Too bad you were unable to muster as many troops as the supporters of this project. The numerous public hearings, press coverage, and political actions clearly show that the notification process is more than adequate. www.qactv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Community-Informational-Meeting.pdf
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Aug 26, 2014 13:27:29 GMT -4
I enjoyed seeing my neighbors – on both sides of this issue . Everyone was very respectful towards one another. And virtually everyone seemed supportive of having this type of assistance available to those who need it. Good points were made by many.
The difference that I saw was that people who have volunteered in the QAC homeless shelter and have experience with the type of homeless folks that are in our county – spoke without fear. People who did speak about the fear of having homeless families and people living in Stevensville, had not spent any time in the QAC homeless shelter – or at least nobody said that they had.
The one commish had a very valid point – that local residents should make efforts to get on the Our Haven board and have a voice on shelter rules and decisions. That made a lot of sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by bols43 on Aug 26, 2014 17:27:45 GMT -4
IDIOTS, SINCE THERE ARE DRUG DEALERS ON THE BIKE PATHS ALREADY WE SHOULD BUILD A HOUSE FOR THEM.
KICK THE HOMELESS OUT, TAKE THAT 2 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE SHELTER AND GIVE THEM PLANE TICKETS.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Aug 26, 2014 18:42:19 GMT -4
Regardless, I think the meeting showed the public notification process of today is insufficient. I've spoken with Gregg Todd since the meeting and he has promised to propose a dedicated section on the QACTV website that is used solely for listing public hearings. This will give people one consistent place to refer to in order to keep up with public hearings, rather than having to search the bay times, the start democrat, QACTV news section, etc... So, that's a good thing. I think that an overflow crowd would indicate to me that adequate notice was given for the information session. Too bad you were unable to muster as many troops as the supporters of this project. What if you don't get qactv?
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 26, 2014 18:44:46 GMT -4
The people speaking against the location were focused on the future. As KI grows, and it continues to grow, we are concerned about the location and HM's ability to handle what will likely come it's way in their tremendously expanded operations. Most of us came with questions and concerns about the future, and were continuously rebutted with comments about how the past few years will continue to play out forever.
The meeting notices may have been what's minimally required by law, but it wasn't sufficient. If the shelter had been sufficiently communicated to the Stevensville citizens, this meeting would've happened in 2009. The commissioners agree that they can do a better job, that's why tonight they are discussing a new section of the QACTV website that is solely dedicated to public notices. That way citizens won't have to sift through online articles and various newspapers (some out of their region like the Stevensville shelter notice being published in a centreville paper).
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 26, 2014 18:45:52 GMT -4
I think that an overflow crowd would indicate to me that adequate notice was given for the information session. Too bad you were unable to muster as many troops as the supporters of this project. What if you don't get qactv? QACTV is the county website. If you don't have internet access, then you probably read the newspaper!
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Aug 27, 2014 7:07:47 GMT -4
I was there... And I was pleased to see the amount of people there. I was a little discouraged by the length of time they presented. Lots of people began to leave. I unfortunately was not able to stay for all the comments because I had to leave as well to pick up my kid. Did they respond to any community concerns or was it just a session for the community to vent/express concerns without any rebuttal? My concern is (among some others) their staffing. Their "individual case worker" who makes plans of action for their guests is one person. Krista runs the business end of this organization, Sandi is the case worker. That's not enough to deal with what they have now much less expanding. So is there a plan to hire more staff? The volunteers are not allowed to do much with the guests aside from feed them dinner and join them for dinner and some time after that. While I've not volunteered I have been very involved in some of the guests lives and have seen/heard from them what happens. And I have had to deal with Sandi on more occasions than i would like. I have been completely dismissed by Krista because I do not attend a member church. So the presentation was exactly what I thought it would be... We are awesome. Look at all our support. You don't volunteer so you don't know come volunteer. Fortunately, I was able to finally find out who is on the board.... Which is something that is not public
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Sept 15, 2014 15:28:05 GMT -4
There's an online petition that started yesterday. It's attempting to show citizen desire for the County and Haven Ministries to find a more suitable location than the planned State Street location. here's a link
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Oct 8, 2014 12:51:29 GMT -4
For all the supports of this laughable "shelter".......... Wait till something bad happens. Wait till a child gets harmed by someone who was turned away at night because they were drinking or worse. It will be on YOUR conscience! I simply can not even BEGIN to fathom the thought of even a semi-intelligent human being approving a homeless shelter right smack dab between 3 schools, a park and a popular public trail. It stinks of complete incompetence!! You should be ashamed of yourselves. Certainly there is a more suitable location in this area other than the one proposed.
|
|
|
Post by deepsea on Oct 8, 2014 12:59:58 GMT -4
It doesn't matter what you want!
All you can do is vote!
|
|
|
Post by jennyg on Oct 8, 2014 13:21:53 GMT -4
As I am sure has been stated previously: IT IS A HOMELESS SHELTER!!! IT IS NOT A PRISON FOR CRIMINALS. HOMELESS DOES NOT EQUAL CRIMINAL.
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Oct 8, 2014 19:13:47 GMT -4
As I am sure has been stated previously: IT IS A HOMELESS SHELTER!!! IT IS NOT A PRISON FOR CRIMINALS. HOMELESS DOES NOT EQUAL CRIMINAL. You must be in that "special kind of stupid" category, right??
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Oct 8, 2014 19:52:47 GMT -4
For all the supports of this laughable "shelter".......... Wait till something bad happens. Wait till a child gets harmed by someone who was turned away at night because they were drinking or worse. It will be on YOUR conscience! I simply can not even BEGIN to fathom the thought of even a semi-intelligent human being approving a homeless shelter right smack dab between 3 schools, a park and a popular public trail. It stinks of complete incompetence!! You should be ashamed of yourselves. Certainly there is a more suitable location in this area other than the one proposed.Rob has become a LIBERAL! But what about the children!? Hey Rob. That shelter has been there for 4-5 years. No problems.
|
|
|
Post by knottygal on Oct 8, 2014 20:10:13 GMT -4
Who woke this bear up?
|
|
jb
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by jb on Oct 8, 2014 20:54:44 GMT -4
Facts from the National Coalition for the Homeless: "According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness. In comparison, only 6% of Americans are severely mentally ill (National Institute of Mental Health, 2009)." www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/Mental_Illness.html"Although obtaining an accurate, recent count is difficult, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2003) estimates, 38% of homeless people were dependent on alcohol and 26% abused other drugs. Alcohol abuse is more common in older generations, while drug abuse is more common in homeless youth and young adults (Didenko and Pankratz, 2007). Substance abuse is much more common among homeless people than in the general population. According to the 2006 National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 15% of people above the age of 12 reported using drugs within the past year and only 8% reported using drugs within the past month." www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.html"HIV/AIDS and homelessness are intricately related. The costs of health care and medications for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) are often too high for people to keep up with. In addition, PLWHA are in danger of losing their jobs due to discrimination or as a result of frequent health-related absences. As a result, up to 50% of PLWHA in the United States are at risk of becoming homeless (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2006). In addition, the conditions of homelessness may increase the risk of contracting HIV. A disproportionately large number of homeless people suffer from substance abuse disorders. Many homeless people inject drugs intravenously, and may share or reuse needles. This practice is responsible for 13% of HIV/AIDS diagnoses in the United States. An additional 50% of cases are a result of male-to-male sexual contact, and 33% are due to heterosexual sex (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Unfortunately, the conditions of homelessness may lead to sexual behaviors that increase the risk of contracting HIV. For example, many shelters are single sex, and most offer limited privacy, including communal sleeping and bathing. These circumstances make it difficult for shelter residents to form stable sexual relationships (University of California San Francisco Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, 2005). Homeless people with HIV/AIDS encounter many challenges to their health. Due to factors such as poor hygiene, malnutrition, and exposure to cold and rainy weather, homeless people are already three to six times more likely than housed people to become ill (National Health Care for the Homeless Council, 2008). Since HIV targets the immune system, PLWHA do not have the ability to fight off disease, and their risk of illness is even higher. Additionally, crowded shelters with poor ventilation can endanger people with HIV/AIDS by exposing them to infections such as hepatitis A, pneumonia, tuberculosis, and skin infections. One study shows that people who sleep in a shelter are twice as likely to have tuberculosis if they are HIV-positive (National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2006)." www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/hiv.html
|
|