|
Post by constructr on May 20, 2015 15:52:33 GMT -4
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule. A very close personal friend volunteers at a homeless shelter and she says 85% of the people there are not "down on their luck" but are, in fact, drug addicts, sex offenders, alcoholics, folks with severe mental illness and some are violent. The planned shelter will have 44 beds. It only takes one of those listed to cause a serious problem. Not worth the risk and it should be located to a place where it can be monitored closely. Haven Ministries has made it crystal clear that they will be importing occupants from abroad as well.
Facts are facts!! Stop hiding behind the lies.
|
|
dw
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by dw on May 20, 2015 16:37:19 GMT -4
Here is the text of the conclusions made by the HUD field office:
In carrying out our assessment of the allegations, the Baltimore Field Office interviewed State CDBG staff, County staff and Haven Ministries staff; reviewed files, viewed an archived webcast of an August 2014 public meeting called by the Board of Queen Anne’s County Commissioners on the second project, and conducted an on-site visit. HUD concluded that the State was in compliance with its CDBG policies and procedures and that Queen Anne County was substantially in compliance with pertinent federal requirements, except as identified by the State itself in its monitoring report on the first project. A public hearing was held prior to the submission of the first application as required and the second public hearing was advertised and conducted as also required.
For the second application, a public meeting was held on May 10, 2011, at the County office building and advertised in the Star Democrat newspaper. The County has both a Citizen Participation Plan and a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan.” Both plans were updated in May 2012 to reflect current language changes that are mandated by the State.
In November, 2012, Cindy Stone (Director Office of Federal Programs, State DHCD) conducted an on-site monitoring of the initial project (MD-10-CD-31). The report had one finding. The State determined that the County did not comply with all of the pertinent requirements of the Uniform Act with regard to the acquisition of the site. However, the State determined that the sale was voluntary, that the property was listed, and the actions taken or not taken by the County in this regard did not adversely impact the sellers or the due process of sale.
Additional oversight occurred when the State reviewed the Environmental Review Record (ERR) for the first project. The State approved the County’s Release of Funds which was issued on October 21, 2009. For the first application, Mr. Ranelli stated that there was no evidence of publication of a finding of no significant environmental impact. We found that this was because the County decided that the project was categorically excluded from a full environmental assessment under HUD’s environmental review requirements at 24 CFR Part 58. The State concurred that this determination was not required. The HUD Baltimore Field Office Environmental Officer reviewed the pertinent ERR and came to the same conclusion.
As stated in its monitoring review of the first project, the State concluded that there were no violations of the program’s citizen participation requirements. With regard to the second project, Mr. Ranelli believes that the County was required to notify the public when it was decided to demolish the existing structure and also when the State gave the County a time extension. The State disagrees. With regard to the change in project design, the State, concluded that the proposed increase in the number of square feet of building to be constructed would be not considered a substantial change to the project because the increase in size did not impact the purpose of structure, did not change the location, and will not impact the previously estimated number of beneficiaries. This determination is within the discretion of the State.
Mr. Ranelli alleges that the County provided the State with falseinformation which made it impossible for the Maryland Historic Trust, the entity recognized as the State Historic Preservation Officer authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1996, to make a determination as to whether the this federallyassisted project would have an adverse effects on historic resources. Anyone dealing with the Maryland Historic Trust knows that it is both zealous and well-informed in carrying out its responsibilities in this area. It has on several occasions determined that there will be no adverse effects in this regard.
Mr. Ranelli contends that State is a dupe of the County with regard to this project, that the State was provided repeatedly with false information. Based on HUD's review, it does not appear that the County deliberately tried to mislead the State.
As noted earlier, in the one area of acquisition the State in its monitoring did identify procedural errors on the part of the County, but none on the scale that would require the termination of either CDBG-assisted project. The State followed its policies and procedures to ensure compliance with CDBG requirements.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on May 21, 2015 13:52:36 GMT -4
In all fairness to Mr Ranelli, I am posting his response that he had recently posted on the QAC site:
Bay Times Shoves Aside KI Parents, Elected Officials in Favor of Curiously-timed Story on Individual Complaint
Having inexplicably held the story of a February 1 HUD response for 3 1/2 months, Angela Price, Bay Times editor and Caroline County resident, now appears complicit in Haven Ministries' strategy of diverting attention to one citizen rather than the needs of children and the homeless of Queen Anne's County.
In response, the target of the article, Mike Ranelli, father of two young girls who lives near the shelter site, has provided SOS with his reaction and detailed analysis of the article. Mr. Ranelli writes:
"At a time when the focus should be on the safety of our schools, open government and real solutions to QAC’s affordable housing issues, it’s unconscionable that the Bay Times has deliberately attempted to shift the focus toward me, solely because I continue to seek facts and ask questions. Apparently that makes me a threat.
Why are they afraid of the truth? Isn't information-gathering and inquiry the role of a responsible journalist? How much longer will I have to do their job?
The vast majority of facts about shelter plans and intended clientele have only been disclosed on the SOS site - not by Haven Ministries, not by Queen Anne's County, and most certainly NOT the Bay Times. The people of Kent Island literally aren’t buying it!
While I wasn’t at last week's meeting, we should all find it patently offensive that the Bay Times editor chose the word 'hijack' to describe nearly 20 of you exercising your right to participating in the democratic process. Does Angela Price fail to recognize that government is by and for the people?
Equally offensive is the paper’s failure to report on our commissioners comments that evening. Commissioners Buckey, Anderson and Wilson were responsive - objecting to the location of a 44-bed, $2.7 million homeless shelter on a trail, by Old Love Point Park and near four public schools to be problematic. Jim Moran made no comment and has given no cogent explanation for his support of the project.
Frankly, "hijack" is a word better suited to describing how our own county government is allowing Stevensville to be used by other counties. Do Kent Islanders realize that much of the driving force behind building a 44-bed, $2.7 million shelter by our schools originates in Talbot and Caroline Counties? For instance:
- An Easton-based agency,Mid-Shore Mental Health Systems, cites the Kent Island shelter as “invaluable” to the “entire Eastern Shore.”
- Haven Ministries Director Krista Pettit lives in Royal Oak (near St. Michael’s.) - QAC Housing Director Mike Clark lives in Easton - Bay Times editor Angela Price lives in Denton.
While the transparent timing of this article provides a window into the agenda of The Bay Times, a stunningly apparent lack of research on the part of a veteran writer/editor calls into question the overall journalistic integrity of Kent Island's local news source.
I feel it’s critical to set the record straight immediately.
This story is not about about me. If this shelter is built at 325 State St, our children who use the schools, park and trail, the homeless who need services, and the very concept of open government will suffer, all because Krista Pettit and county staff did an end run around the public process and manipulated information in pursuit of a personal vision.
Well-intended? Likely. Legal? Questionable. Ethical? Doubtful. Responsible? Hardly
This way this federal and state funded project has been handled sets a terrifying precedent for Kent Island: If we allow it to be built in such an egregious location, how can local citizens ever expect to have a say about any future project or development?
As Commissioner Wilson has said, Pettit and QAC staff have left us with "an enormous problem."
Now let's take a detailed look at some aspects of today's article:
===Last Week's Meeting===
Bay Times Editor ANGELA PRICE: “...shelter opponents used the May 11 county budget meeting as a forum to air their objections. Nineteen people spoke against the project.”
THE TRUTH: The published agenda included Public Comment time for “anyone wishing to speak.” Citizens simply took advantage of a rare local meeting, exercising their right to participate in their own government. For the second week, the Bay Times failed to report that three commissioners agreed that 325 State St. is a poor choice, or that Commissioner Mark Anderson actually thanked citizens for speaking, saying, “While this is a budget hearing, this is local government and this is an important issue here."
===August 2014 Shelter Public Meeting===
Bay Times Editor ANGELA PRICE: “...at a public information hearing scheduled to discuss the project...17 people spoke against locating the facility on State Street, 49 favored it... “
THE TRUTH: only 35 spoke in favor, not 49 - including the attorney for the Housing Authority, numerous Haven Ministries board members, and a convicted child sex offender. It was a meeting scheduled at the request of a citizen - was not a hearing and no questions were allowed.
Some of those speakers were: Midgett Parker - Attorney for QA Housing Authority, lives in Barclay Sandi Wiscott - paid operations manager, Haven Ministries shelter Jean Peterson - Haven Ministries board, employed by MD Dept of Housing, resident of Denton Bill Peterson - husband of Jean, resident of Denton Mary Jourdak - President - Haven Ministries board Charles Jourdak - husband of Mary Mary Ella Jourdak - daughter of Mary Thomas Jourdak - son of Mary Mary Beth Young - Secretary, Haven Ministries board Caroline Aland - Haven Ministries board Margie Reedy - Haven Ministries board, Grasonville Rick Cira - Haven Ministries board - Chester Rich Culotta - Haven Ministries board - Queenstown Renatta Burns - daughter of board member Rev. Marjorie Burns Rev. David Bennett, KI UMC - Headquarters of Haven Ministries Rev. Charlie Osberger, Wye Parish, Wye Mills Michael Phillips - fundraising planner for Haven Ministries - Stevensville Grace Starkey - former shelter client Dorothy King - sister of former shelter client Sandra Early - Director of United Way which supports Haven Ministries Wayne Humphries - Chair of the QAC Local Management Board Carol Fordonski - former commissioner who voted for the grant to purchase a "site yet to be determined" in 2009 Ben Cassell - former commissioner who was found to have lied about his college education (Bay Times, 2006) Dave Cutshaw - convicted child sex offender who, according to 2009, 2014 and 2015 Bay Times photographs, volunteers at family events at Christ Church Kent Island
===Regulatory Compliance===
Bay Times Editor ANGELA PRICE: “Halm noted the state monitored the initial site acquisition” OMITTED FACT: The grant administrator and grant compliance monitor are one and the same person.
===Building Plans===
Bay Times Editor ANGELA PRICE: Plans call for a 20-bed emergency shelter on the first floor with seven beds for transitional housing on the second floor THE TRUTH: The second floor plans show 8 dorm rooms for up to three people each (24 total), and a staff apartment. The total building capacity is 57.
===Public Notice===
Bay Times Editor ANGELA PRICE:: “The state and federal reviews of Ranelli’s complaints found no public notice violations”
THE TRUTH: The county knew and disclosed the address to the state in 2008, well before applying for federal funds, but failed to disclose it to QAC citizens until after the property was acquired in November, 2009. QAC was required to “provide citizens with reasonable advance notice of, and an opportunity to comment on, proposed activities in an application to the state” which was specific to 325 State Street, Stevensville, MD.
Timeline (source: public documents) 7/1/08 - QACCA and county first interested in 325 State St. 9/5/08 - County, QACCA value home at $270,000 12/8/08 - “we are ready to have DHCD inspect the property” 12/22/08 - county to state: “...enjoyed meeting you and discussing the State St. Property this morning” 4/2/09- Memo from county staff to Commissioner Gunther identifies 325 State St. 5/7/09 - County administrator to commission re 325 State St: “I have included it as an item in the 8 am CLOSED SESSION Tuesday…” 5/7/09 - Public Notice of Hearing, NO ADDRESS, published in Easton Star Democrat, 5/12/09 - Commissioners Meeting/Hearing: “SITE IS YET TO BE DETERMINED” May 19, 2009 - contract signed for 325 State St. - $338,000 May 22, 2009 - QAC grant application submitted to state - names 325 State St. June 22, 2009 - Appraisal of $325,000 11/10/09 - QAC Commission signs for grant, doesn’t bring up the address 11/16/09 - sale completed using $338,000 in federal funds 11/18/09 - first time 325 State St. appears publicly (Bay Times) 11/19/09 - first citizen inquires about 325 State St.
====The following are clarifications to the "HUD report"===
HUD on Geography: “Mr. Ranelli resides on State Street; the project is located at 325 State Street.” TRUTH: Mr. Ranelli and family live on Love Point Rd. Many Love Point Rd and Old Love Point Rd residents live even closer to the shelter site than homes on State St - including a family of five whose home borders the shelter property.
HUD on QAC Public Participation Compliance: “The State has not yet conducted a monitoring review of the second project because it is not yet under way.” TRUTH: The construction grant was approved in 2012. QAC signed a “public participation plan” which it has not honored. No monitoring takes place until after construction.
HUD on Regulatory Compliance in General: “HUD will give maximum feasible deference to a State’s interpretation of the statutory and regulatory requirements pertinent to that program.” QUESTION: How is it possible for a state to have authority to interpret federal statutes and regulations? What rules can citizens expect to be followed?
HUD on Site Acquisition: “although some noncompliance with Federal acquisition rules occurred, they did not adversely impact the seller of the property.” TRUTH: HUD neglects to mention the impact on TAXPAYERS - who paid $338,000 for a dilapidated property which seven years earlier had sold for just $95,000. (Note: Since December 2014, two similar lots on State Street have sold for $93,500 and $107,000)
HUD found these violations.... The county failed to provide the property owners with formal written notice of intent to acquire with federal funds, a written offer to purchase, or a statement of just compensation, failed to pay all settlement costs and did not invite the property owners to accompany the appraisal
HUD ignored these violations... - QAC violated federal regs by negotiating a purchase price prior to obtaining an appraisal - QAC violated Maryland law by using an appraiser unqualified for a federal transaction over $250,000 - QAC’s appraiser used a property she had recently owned and sold - in Grasonville - as the primary comp. It sold for $325,500. 325 State St. was valued at $325,000. Another comp was a 2+ acre tract in Queenstown. - The same appraiser incorporated a valuation method prohibited under federal regulations, - QAC valued the property at only $270,000 but failed to advise the owner, the state or federal government of that determination. - QAC justified overpaying by erroneously stating that “The property is surrounded by commercial and industrial property which insulates and buffers it from the surrounding residential neighborhood and helps to avoid negative reactions to the project by community residents. This is especially important in maintaining community and political support for the project as it develops.”
HUD (not reported by Angela Price): "Mr. Ranelli’s objections to this project being located on his street are understandable." State Housing, 2009: "The re-use of the property as a homeless shelter is a special use that many neighbors would protest." TRUTH: Yep.
HUD on local government authority: "It is apparent that Mr. Ranelli’s views on this project differ from those of Queen Anne’s County Board of Commissioners."
TRUTH: Not anymore. They need to stop this RIGHT NOW, then get behind Commissioner Buckey's idea to form a blue-ribbon panel to recommend the right solutions to homelessness and affordable housing problems - specifically in QAC. Spending $2.7 million of our money in this spot is simply not the answer. Contact: qaccommissionersandadministrator@qac.org
Thank you, Mike Ranelli 5/20/15"
Link: www.facebook.com/groups/249843083262/
|
|
dw
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by dw on May 21, 2015 14:30:02 GMT -4
Stirring up fear in the community has gained SOS some additional supporters until they learn the truth. Ridiculing and the twisting the words of the commissioners has not resulted in any action on their part. Nit-picking the findings of HUD and the DHCD has not resulted in them revising their report.
I doubt that complaining about press coverage is going to change anything either.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on May 21, 2015 16:34:39 GMT -4
Stirring up fear in the community has gained SOS some additional supporters until they learn the truth. Ridiculing and the twisting the words of the commissioners has not resulted in any action on their part. Nit-picking the findings of HUD and the DHCD has not resulted in them revising their report. I doubt that complaining about press coverage is going to change anything either. Seems like Mr Ranelli has a lot of nits to pick at. So many that maybe he has some good reasons for wanting it looked at closer. That's why I posted his response. Let everyone make up their own minds with inputs from both sides.
If you have a rebuttal to what he says, then have at it. That's why we are here.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on May 21, 2015 21:06:19 GMT -4
Ranelli bought his house without investigating what was around his home WHEN HE BOUGHT and expects the the County to change things so he's happy. Too bad, so sad.
|
|
ipm
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Post by ipm on May 21, 2015 21:14:44 GMT -4
I foresee an interesting scenario. The people staying there will go deaf from the historical 1950 Air Raid Siren which is less than 50'. Currently, the siren is over 65 years old and the solenoids stick open. Eventually, a few young lawyers will notice this. They will round up the homeless from the new county home. There will be a class action suit against the county for hearing loss and emotional distress. County Tax payers will foot the bill of a few million, and the place will get shut down as a result of class action suit. I feel sorry for the homeless that get stuck there. They better issue ear plugs for the short term residents with good hearing. I support the homeless shelter 110% if they remove the siren. But, I don't think it is fair to put homeless next to a siren that has a stuck solenoid. It is almost criminal for a county to put people down and out on their luck next to a siren. Is this legal ?
|
|
ragtop
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by ragtop on May 21, 2015 22:38:52 GMT -4
I'm so sick about hearing about this!!! Did any of you ever drive down State Street before the shelter was being put there? It was a street full of mixed use property! When we was looking to purchase a house, We could have bought more house for the money... BUT it was in a mixed use area. So we decided to by the smaller house in a residential only neighborhood. That was our choice and we have to live with the consequences!
There are so many families out there that are one illness away, or one paycheck away from losing everything! It doesn't mean your a druggie or a sex offender, just because you fall on hard times! BELIEVE ME IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANY ONE OF US!
|
|
|
Post by constructr on May 22, 2015 7:18:03 GMT -4
I'm so sick about hearing about this!!! Did any of you ever drive down State Street before the shelter was being put there? It was a street full of mixed use property! When we WERE looking to purchase a house, We could have bought more house for the money... BUT it was in a mixed use area. So we decided to by the smaller house in a residential only neighborhood. That was our choice and we have to live with the consequences! FIFY There are so many families out there that are one illness away, or one paycheck away from losing everything! It doesn't mean your a druggie or a sex offender, just because you fall on hard times! BELIEVE ME IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANY ONE OF US! You're exactly right. And to expand on that, there are also thousands of people who CHOOSE to be homeless. Not directly, but they choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and let it destroy their lives to where they loose everything. Are you going to sit here and tell me that this type of clientele will NOT be allowed at the shelter?? If so, please don't be so naive.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on May 22, 2015 9:42:36 GMT -4
Everyone gets the breathalizer before staying. If anyone shows any signs of drug use, the police are called. And social workers are asigned to help people get the type of need that is right for them.
Why should we allow a few bad eggs stand in the way of our community supporting our neighbors who have lost everything. Ragtop is right. It could happen to any of us.
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on May 22, 2015 9:48:41 GMT -4
Everyone gets the breathalizer before staying. If anyone shows any signs of drug use, the police are called. And social workers are asigned to help people get the type of need that is right for them. Why should we allow a few bad eggs stand in the way of our community supporting our neighbors who have lost everything. Ragtop is right. It could happen to any of us. So, someone who has made the choice to use drugs and has become homeless as a result could stay if he gets clean long enough to pass a breathalyzer test? Once there we can expect them to continue to make good decisions about how to act around the neighborhood? OK.
|
|
|
Post by constructr on May 22, 2015 11:31:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by constructr on May 22, 2015 11:41:17 GMT -4
Everyone gets the breathalizer before staying. If anyone shows any signs of drug use, the police are called. And social workers are asigned to help people get the type of need that is right for them. Why should we allow a few bad eggs stand in the way of our community supporting our neighbors who have lost everything. Ragtop is right. It could happen to any of us. You bought that line??? And just what, exactly, happens to the people next?? Where do they go?? Jail?? They haven't broken any laws, if it's alcohol, so they can't go to jail. Where do they go? Also, where are all these people supposed to park?? There only 5 parking spaces for the entire facility!! Just because you're homeless, doesn't mean you don't have a vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by kidoode on May 23, 2015 7:29:41 GMT -4
I still wonder about people who buy a house and then demand that everything within a certain diameter must meet their personal approval. Mike Ranelli bought his house in June 2014 and almost immediately started his tirade against a project that has been in the works for a couple years.
Typical come-here NIMBY.
Doode
|
|
|
Post by cruzincat on May 23, 2015 8:13:19 GMT -4
I still wonder about people who buy a house and then demand that everything within a certain diameter must meet their personal approval. Mike Ranelli bought his house in June 2014 and almost immediately started his tirade against a project that has been in the works for a couple years. Typical come-here NIMBY. Doode You have a good point there, but that doesn't invalidate Mr Ranelli's points about how the project was pushed through improperly. Maybe the fact that it was not publicized properly had something to do with him going ahead and purchasing the home without knowing what was coming.
|
|
|
Post by shorti on May 26, 2015 22:09:20 GMT -4
You're exactly right. And to expand on that, there are also thousands of people who CHOOSE to be homeless. Not directly, but they choose to abuse drugs and alcohol and let it destroy their lives to where they loose everything. Are you going to sit here and tell me that this type of clientele will NOT be allowed at the shelter?? If so, please don't be so naive. [/quote]
Yes at first people make bad decisions & CHOOSE to use drugs - but many of those drugs are EXTREMELY addictive and they are immediately or quickly addicted. So they CHOOSE to continue to use because at this point they are addicted... Our county, state & federal "programs" for "help" are lacking to say the least... Also let's not forget the doctors who prescribe pharmaceutical grade heroin (oxy) and people get hooked on those, then prescriptions get too expensive (lose insurance, job, whatever)or the doc cuts them off and it's actually cheaper to buy heroin off the streets, so they resort to that. I've seen that... It happens far too often.
However not only homeless people are addicts - your neighbor may be one, your boss, your kids, your friends... Some are "fortunate" enough to not lose everything and some are not.
What I do not & have not been able to understand about all of this is what's your counter proposal? Centreville near "services"? In the close proximity to several schools & residences & parks? But they are closer to what? Social services? housing departments? ok I'll give you that... Jobs? not any more than what KI offers or chester or grasonville - all within walking distance. Actually probably more jobs here than there. Which is what they NEED more than social services. Social services isn't a place you go to daily to "hang out"; it's a place you go to in order to apply for insurance, food stamps, cash assistance, etc... and then you leave and go home... they also have the ability to let you get online & find a job - but so does the library or perhaps this facility if it's properly equipped.
And you point out "mid shore mental health" to point to your point of serving more than QAC - however they are they one agency that handles ALL the shore, we don't have one just for QAC.
You point out where people live in proximity to the proposed shelter who are "for" it. One of them was Chester - you know that starts at the circle right? I live in Chester which is near the trail. In fact, I believe it's called the cross island trail & runs from terrapin park to the narrows - that's a pretty large population of people that live in proximity to that trail that you fear the homeless will be causing trouble on.
You mention the schools - what you fail to mention is that during school hours all doors are locked. when the children are outside - they are supervised. And if you're elementary school child is walking home alone, well then that's just ridiculous.
You also fail to mention that there have been homeless in our community all along. Living in relative harmony with us, in a residential area, on our trails, in our library, in our town. heck many of them wait on you in local stores. You would be SHOCKED at some of the people who have come through there. And let's not forget - regardless of where the shelter is or is not, they will still be here. Just a little more desperate because they have nothing. you worry about bringing people in from other counties who don't have services - what about those people? To heck with them? Let their county worry about it? What if their shelters are full? Sorry about your luck, sleep in the cold tonight? Take it up with your local representative? And then let's not forget this either... how many of you are from QAC? Born & raised? At some point many of us have moved from somewhere else here. How do you know if the people the shelter will serve did the same & fell on hard times or made a bad decision & lost it all? Can you say you have NEVER made a bad decision? I know I cannot. And yes, there are consequences for bad decisions and perhaps losing your home, family, job are those consequences. So the good ole KI community says "let's kick them while they're down? you can't stay here because you may come in contact with my children" Wow... that speaks volumes.
I have PERSONALLY been with the people who have come through this shelter and can tell you that yes, they have fallen on hard times. Two were addicts seeking help to get clean but being homeless was having a hard time doing so but since they can go to recovery meetings there, they were turning a leaf. One was a young girl who made some bad decisions & got kicked out of her house & started making good decisions but because of the damage done, she had no where to go. she now has a place of her own. A guy who was also young - made bad decisions in his life and was paying the consequences - now has his own place and a job & is clean. There was a man who I KNOW 80% of you would KNOW - bad choices, left homeless, in the shelter.
They are given a breathalyzer when they arrive and if they have been drinking, they are not allowed in. They are not allowed to have alcohol there. They are not allowed "guests". They can only go out to smoke twice in an evening with a close eye on them. They are not allowed to leave once checked in. They are given bus tickets to get them to the services they require or job interviews or I've known one of the employees to take them to said appointments.
Irony??? I have some issues with the shelter admin and have a VERY hard time "defending" them. And honestly I'm not defending "them"; I'm defending the ones they serve. Sure can there be some changes to policy and budget allocations for Haven ministries. But that can be said about EVERY organization - from big business to your local little league teams.
What's sad is we live in this world of "all about me, mine" and have become so self-centered and narrow minded that we have chosen to worry more about "our stuff" and to hell with everyone else's stuff. While our kids are wearing $100 shoes, $100 outfit & carrying a $500 cell phone, being driven in a $50000 car, living in a $400-500K house, with every gaming unit or technological gadget they make for kids, and we are out having fun on our boats, getting hair & nails done, buying new "toys", taking costly vacations, we have the audacity to point to those who have fallen on hard times or made some bad decisions and say "not in my neighborhood"? I know, they might damage the value of your property or the type of lifestyle you want your friends/family to think you have.
I'm not invalidating the concern of safety, I'm validating the over-hype & stereotypical casting of the homeless. Want to make a difference? Get involved in the shelter, with the people who reside there, make suggestions on how HM can better run their facility in this location with safety in mind.
You have YET to provide a "better" option of any merit other than "not in my neighborhood".
|
|
|
Post by constructr on May 27, 2015 6:21:12 GMT -4
Shorti, Again, you have failed to state what happens to them when they fail a sobriety or drug test, other than to say "They are not allowed in." Additionally, your comments about people who BUST THEIR A$$ES working 12 - 14 hours a day to provide a decent life for their family are pathetic, at best. You also FAIL to point out the charitable contributions "we" give because we WANT to. Not because we "have to". Perhaps, if "society" and government weren't so intent on "taking" from people who have succeeded in life, only to have it re-distributed to those who are simply milking the system for all it's worth, things just might be a little different!!
|
|
|
Post by deepsea on May 27, 2015 7:35:38 GMT -4
Shorti, Again, you have failed to state what happens to them when they fail a sobriety or drug test, other than to say "They are not allowed in." Additionally, your comments about people who BUST THEIR A$$ES working 12 - 14 hours a day to provide a decent life for their family are pathetic, at best. You also FAIL to point out the charitable contributions "we" give because we WANT to. Not because we "have to". Perhaps, if "society" and government weren't so intent on "taking" from people who have succeeded in life, only to have it re-distributed to those who are simply milking the system for all it's worth, things just might be a little different!! I can no longer deal with the animosity! I'm moving to baltimore!
|
|
|
Post by jackbquick on May 27, 2015 8:15:07 GMT -4
Shorti, Again, you have failed to state what happens to them when they fail a sobriety or drug test, other than to say "They are not allowed in." Additionally, your comments about people who BUST THEIR A$$ES working 12 - 14 hours a day to provide a decent life for their family are pathetic, at best. You also FAIL to point out the charitable contributions "we" give because we WANT to. Not because we "have to". Perhaps, if "society" and government weren't so intent on "taking" from people who have succeeded in life, only to have it re-distributed to those who are simply milking the system for all it's worth, things just might be a little different!! Not commenting about the shelter but Constructr nailed it!!! I could not agree more about second paragraph. Probably what makes me pissed off every morining as I wake up and slave just to give it to someone else milking the system who has all the time in the world to play.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on May 27, 2015 14:13:02 GMT -4
Shorti, Again, you have failed to state what happens to them when they fail a sobriety or drug test, other than to say "They are not allowed in." Additionally, your comments about people who BUST THEIR A$$ES working 12 - 14 hours a day to provide a decent life for their family are pathetic, at best. You also FAIL to point out the charitable contributions "we" give because we WANT to. Not because we "have to". Perhaps, if "society" and government weren't so intent on "taking" from people who have succeeded in life, only to have it re-distributed to those who are simply milking the system for all it's worth, things just might be a little different!! I don't want to get in the middle of any of this, but...where are they going to go if refused entry into a shelter? Well, I suppoose wherever they went before there was a shelter, don't u think?
|
|
|
Post by ravens20 on May 27, 2015 14:30:28 GMT -4
Shorti, Again, you have failed to state what happens to them when they fail a sobriety or drug test, other than to say "They are not allowed in." Additionally, your comments about people who BUST THEIR A$$ES working 12 - 14 hours a day to provide a decent life for their family are pathetic, at best. You also FAIL to point out the charitable contributions "we" give because we WANT to. Not because we "have to". Perhaps, if "society" and government weren't so intent on "taking" from people who have succeeded in life, only to have it re-distributed to those who are simply milking the system for all it's worth, things just might be a little different!! I don't want to get in the middle of any of this, but...where are they going to go if refused entry into a shelter? Well, I suppoose wherever they went before there was a shelter, don't u think? I'm not trying to get back into it either, but what you bring up is part of the issue (at least for me). Where are they now? Are there homeless alcoholics and drug addicts wandering the streets of Historic Stevensville and Love Point Park that don't have anywhere to go? If so, I would be all for a shelter in downtown Stevensville that would get these people off the streets and the help that they need. I, personally, have not seen these kinds of people wandering the streets. Of course that doesn't mean that they aren't there, it's just my observation. The most ardent supporters are pushing the absolute best case scenario, a homeless shelter taking in families that have fallen on hard times. The most ardent opponents are pushing the worst case scenario, drug addicts and alcoholics flooding in from the surrounding counties and roaming the streets of Stevensville. I think the truth is most likely somewhere in between, which is why it's an important discussion to have. Unfortunately it seems like this was done as quietly as possible because they knew that the reaction would not be good. And now those of us with concerns are constantly shouted down and told that we are heartless and hate homeless people. I believe they've already stated that they will allow people in from out of the area, so it is still a valid question, what happens to people that are denied entry? Edit - Just to be clear, I am fully aware that Alcohol and Drug Addiction are serious problems and that these people need help. It may be "just a choice" in the beginning, but addiction is real and it needs to be treated.
|
|
|
Post by constructr on May 27, 2015 19:49:40 GMT -4
Shorti, Again, you have failed to state what happens to them when they fail a sobriety or drug test, other than to say "They are not allowed in." Additionally, your comments about people who BUST THEIR A$$ES working 12 - 14 hours a day to provide a decent life for their family are pathetic, at best. You also FAIL to point out the charitable contributions "we" give because we WANT to. Not because we "have to". Perhaps, if "society" and government weren't so intent on "taking" from people who have succeeded in life, only to have it re-distributed to those who are simply milking the system for all it's worth, things just might be a little different!! I don't want to get in the middle of any of this, but...where are they going to go if refused entry into a shelter? Well, I suppoose wherever they went before there was a shelter, don't u think? You suppose?? And just where is that "place" ? Do the police arrest them if it's hard drugs?? Probably not. Certainly wouldn't arrest them if they're drunk, as being drunk isn't a crime unless you're driving or being disorderly. I wonder how the local LEO's will feel when these folks who get turned away from the shelter are roaming State St. looking for a place to crash for the evening or looking for something to steal so they can get their next "fix". Pretty sure it will end badly for the turned away "guest". My money is on the LEO's of the neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by emsguru on May 27, 2015 21:22:52 GMT -4
a year ago they posted that they are sent to a hotel at the cost of the ministry. Guess what, no hotels on KI. So they are shipped to Grasonville. As a Grasonville resident I find this absurd! Stevensville needs to keep their drug addicts on their own island! LOL
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on May 27, 2015 21:27:44 GMT -4
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule. A very close personal friend volunteers at a homeless shelter and she says 85% of the people there are not "down on their luck" but are, in fact, drug addicts, sex offenders, alcoholics, folks with severe mental illness and some are violent. The planned shelter will have 44 beds. It only takes one of those listed to cause a serious problem. Not worth the risk and it should be located to a place where it can be monitored closely. Haven Ministries has made it crystal clear that they will be importing occupants from abroad as well. Facts are facts!! Stop hiding behind the lies. In case folks don't know what "importing occupants from abroad as well" means: If this shelter has room, and neighboring shelters are full, they WILL transport their overflow here.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on May 27, 2015 22:22:07 GMT -4
Are people denied entry to the current shelter? If so, constr, where do THEY go now? I guess I'm just not understanding your question. How is this going to be different, location aside?
|
|