|
Post by Workingman on Aug 21, 2014 9:45:50 GMT -4
The article posted on myeasternshoremd.com appears to say that upset neighbors were not aware of the project when they bought their homes. Just because the concerned parties are new to the area and did not find information through their own due diligence, does not mean that the local government was "sneaking something through." It seems absurd to me that our local government has to invest time and all of our tax dollars to validate a decision that was open to conversation and approved some time ago. Note this article from 2011 which took less than 5 minutes to locate on the same website: The article references one neighbor that recently purchased their home and was unaware of the planned facility. The article doesn't mention the hundreds of neighbors that have lived in the area for many years who were unaware. The county isn't hosting the town hall for that one family. They're hosting it because they've received hundreds of emails and letters and phone calls from Stevensville residents who were unaware, and they're putting all of the pressure on Haven Ministries (a private entity) to justify their decision. There are no tax dollars being utilized for this meeting, other than the tax dollars used to post one announcement on QACTV... which, by the way, followed several articles on QACTV in favor of Haven Ministries, a private entity. I find it absurd that our tax dollars go to advertising on QACTV for private entities. Finally, the conversation to purchase the property in question was not open to public "conversation" because the county purposefully witheld the address from the public hearing announcment; that's sneaky and indicitive of a bunch of lazy commissioners trying to sneak a facility into the community. The article also seems to leave out that the plan is to build an 8,600 square foot building after they demolish the home on State Street. They just say that they are planning on using the house as a transitional home for years to come. Just a little slight of hand I think..
|
|
|
Post by bob66 on Aug 21, 2014 10:01:22 GMT -4
Considering some of the other things that could have been built at that location, a homeless shelter is not all that bad. Here's the entire list of permitted uses for most of the properties along State St.: (1) Agricultural support. (2) Auctions. (3) Bed-and-breakfast. (4) Carry-out food service. (5) Coffee shop. (6) Commercial apartments. (7) Convenience stores, with or without gas pumps. (8) Country inn. (9) Country store. (10) Deli. (11) Drive-through beverage stand. (12) Effluent disposal. (13) Family day-care center. (14) Farmers market. (15) Fraternal organizations. (16) Funeral homes. (17) Group day-care center. (18) High commercial. (19) Hotels. (20) Low commercial. (21) Manufactured home single-wide; allowed only as a replacement for any legal existing mobile home or single-wide home; and to provide temporary shelter, provided the provisions of § 18:1-53 of this Chapter 18:1 have been met. (22) Medium commercial. (23) Miniwarehouse (with or without exterior storage). (24) Noncommercial forestry. (25) Nonprofit and for-profit institutional. (26) Nurseries. (27) Outdoor recreation. (28) Parking. (29) Public service. (30) Shopping centers. (31) Veterinary offices. OK, how about instead of the proposed plan, we combine #'s 5 and 12 as a use for the site?
|
|
|
Post by Workingman on Aug 22, 2014 8:07:16 GMT -4
For more information about this shelter and to see others talking about this please visit Save Our Stevensville Facebook page.. They have some very interesting facts and input on this..
|
|
|
Post by constructr on Aug 23, 2014 22:08:18 GMT -4
Everyone is riled up because YOU are encouraging homeless to come to Stevensville. If Im homeless in Annapolis and I see this new facility I want to come to Stevensville, If I homeless in Chester, Centreville, I want to go to the new place in Stevensville. IF THIS IS TRUELY FOR STEVENSVILLE RESIDENTS, THEN FINE. BUT WE DO NOT WANT TO IMPORT HOMELESS PEOPLE. DING DING DING DING !! We have a winner!!
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Aug 24, 2014 8:09:20 GMT -4
I thought they stated you had to be QA resident at one time to stay there thereby not importing people in
|
|
|
Post by Workingman on Aug 24, 2014 10:52:14 GMT -4
I thought they stated you had to be QA resident at one time to stay there thereby not importing people in OFan, not anymore. They have extended the bus service to go to Annapolis. So if Annapolis is full or if they turn someone away for any reason the bus service will bring those folks from Annapolis to stevensville.
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Aug 24, 2014 12:21:07 GMT -4
I get the bus service but if you aren't from QA county it shouldn't matter
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 24, 2014 13:11:44 GMT -4
I get the bus service but if you aren't from QA county it shouldn't matter Haven Ministries doesn't turn anyone away who is in need of shelter; which is admirable. They also don't require "clients" to be QAC residents, nor do their procedures involve checking for county residence. So, that should answer your question.
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 24, 2014 13:19:48 GMT -4
I really hope there's a significant turnout at the Senior Center tomorrow at 6pm. Despite which side of the fence you're on for this issue, it's a big issue and we need to let the county government know we care and that we should be better included in the public process than we have been in the past.
Commissioner Moran said "I don't know how other counties inform the public, but I think we do a great job"... well, that's pathetic. He should consider how other counties/states/municipalities inform their citizens of public projects. If he had investigated the best practices within Maryland, he'd learn that 21 of the 24 counties have dedicated publications for such notices. QAC is one of three counties left with random placement of public notices in varying publications and continued commingling of public notices with other news stories and advertisements. If you want the citizens to be better informed, make it easier; make the information centralized and streamlined. Allow more than the minimally required 5 days notice for public hearings; most other counties in MD give more than 5 days... some up to 30 days!
Show up tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by shorti on Aug 24, 2014 17:22:51 GMT -4
If they are homeless how would they be a resident anywhere? Hence the term homeless.... Many of the ones I have encountered have no id, no birth certificate to obtain an id....
While there is a part of me asking myself why am I defending this shelter when I have had to deal with their staff... There's a part of me that screams for those they serve... They are people, human beings, fallen on hard times and need help. God forbid if it were ever any one of us or someone we love.... I'm almost ashamed
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Aug 24, 2014 18:17:39 GMT -4
If they are homeless how would they be a resident anywhere? Hence the term homeless.... Many of the ones I have encountered have no id, no birth certificate to obtain an id.... While there is a part of me asking myself why am I defending this shelter when I have had to deal with their staff... There's a part of me that screams for those they serve... They are people, human beings, fallen on hard times and need help. God forbid if it were ever any one of us or someone we love.... I'm almost ashamed And you should be ashamed. Ashamed of the Country and County we have become where the only worth is measured in $$ DOLLARS $$, the nice house and nice cars. This community, or at least much of it, as this forum attests day in and day out, is just a microcosm of that greed, that hate, that unwillingness to lend a hand up and out. It's pathetic and as much as they couch it in terms of "it's not a good location" it's pretty plain to see that it's not a good location because it's too close to them (even though it's been there for years and they never knew). Shame on your neighbors Shorti.
|
|
|
Post by jus listn on Aug 24, 2014 22:07:30 GMT -4
If they are homeless how would they be a resident anywhere? Hence the term homeless.... Many of the ones I have encountered have no id, no birth certificate to obtain an id.... While there is a part of me asking myself why am I defending this shelter when I have had to deal with their staff... There's a part of me that screams for those they serve... They are people, human beings, fallen on hard times and need help. God forbid if it were ever any one of us or someone we love.... I'm almost ashamed And you should be ashamed. Ashamed of the Country and County we have become where the only worth is measured in $$ DOLLARS $$, the nice house and nice cars. This community, or at least much of it, as this forum attests day in and day out, is just a microcosm of that greed, that hate, that unwillingness to lend a hand up and out. It's pathetic and as much as they couch it in terms of "it's not a good location" it's pretty plain to see that it's not a good location because it's too close to them (even though it's been there for years and they never knew). Shame on your neighbors Shorti. Hey Frank.... pound sand you liberal hack!
|
|
|
Post by oriolesfan on Aug 25, 2014 5:11:55 GMT -4
Wasn't aware you weren't allowed to ask questions to educate oneself.
Many of you responding act that way
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 25, 2014 7:13:41 GMT -4
If they are homeless how would they be a resident anywhere? Hence the term homeless.... Many of the ones I have encountered have no id, no birth certificate to obtain an id.... While there is a part of me asking myself why am I defending this shelter when I have had to deal with their staff... There's a part of me that screams for those they serve... They are people, human beings, fallen on hard times and need help. God forbid if it were ever any one of us or someone we love.... I'm almost ashamed Pausing on the construction of this particular shelter is my goal... I'd like the county to kick off a proper site selection process that places the needs of the homeless at the top of the priority list, rather than the ease of implementation on a particular piece of property. I don't believe this is detrimental to the people served by Haven Ministries. If the county were to pause on this, the people served by Haven Ministries would still be served as they are today in the existing facilities. I certainly am not against building a homeless shelter.
|
|
|
Post by knottygal on Aug 25, 2014 9:26:52 GMT -4
And you should be ashamed. Ashamed of the Country and County we have become where the only worth is measured in $$ DOLLARS $$, the nice house and nice cars. This community, or at least much of it, as this forum attests day in and day out, is just a microcosm of that greed, that hate, that unwillingness to lend a hand up and out. It's pathetic and as much as they couch it in terms of "it's not a good location" it's pretty plain to see that it's not a good location because it's too close to them (even though it's been there for years and they never knew). Shame on your neighbors Shorti. Hey Frank.... pound sand you liberal hack! Harsh one, too many sirens yesterday?
|
|
|
Post by Workingman on Aug 25, 2014 11:57:56 GMT -4
If they are homeless how would they be a resident anywhere? Hence the term homeless.... Many of the ones I have encountered have no id, no birth certificate to obtain an id.... While there is a part of me asking myself why am I defending this shelter when I have had to deal with their staff... There's a part of me that screams for those they serve... They are people, human beings, fallen on hard times and need help. God forbid if it were ever any one of us or someone we love.... I'm almost ashamed And you should be ashamed. Ashamed of the Country and County we have become where the only worth is measured in $$ DOLLARS $$, the nice house and nice cars. This community, or at least much of it, as this forum attests day in and day out, is just a microcosm of that greed, that hate, that unwillingness to lend a hand up and out. It's pathetic and as much as they couch it in terms of "it's not a good location" it's pretty plain to see that it's not a good location because it's too close to them (even though it's been there for years and they never knew). Shame on your neighbors Shorti. It doesn't even look like there is anyone living in the house at 325.. Every time I go by the shades are drawn and the yard is over grown.. Frank I'm thinking you don't live anywhere near this site..
|
|
danw
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by danw on Aug 25, 2014 12:42:32 GMT -4
If they are homeless how would they be a resident anywhere? Hence the term homeless.... Many of the ones I have encountered have no id, no birth certificate to obtain an id.... While there is a part of me asking myself why am I defending this shelter when I have had to deal with their staff... There's a part of me that screams for those they serve... They are people, human beings, fallen on hard times and need help. God forbid if it were ever any one of us or someone we love.... I'm almost ashamed Pausing on the construction of this particular shelter is my goal... I'd like the county to kick off a proper site selection process that places the needs of the homeless at the top of the priority list, rather than the ease of implementation on a particular piece of property. I don't believe this is detrimental to the people served by Haven Ministries. If the county were to pause on this, the people served by Haven Ministries would still be served as they are today in the existing facilities. I certainly am not against building a homeless shelter. Perhaps you should have asked for the study back in 2010 when they first proposed this project. Now it just looks like a stalling tactic to me.
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 25, 2014 13:05:17 GMT -4
Pausing on the construction of this particular shelter is my goal... I'd like the county to kick off a proper site selection process that places the needs of the homeless at the top of the priority list, rather than the ease of implementation on a particular piece of property. I don't believe this is detrimental to the people served by Haven Ministries. If the county were to pause on this, the people served by Haven Ministries would still be served as they are today in the existing facilities. I certainly am not against building a homeless shelter. Perhaps you should have asked for the study back in 2010 when they first proposed this project. Now it just looks like a stalling tactic to me. perhaps you should get better educated on this... the project started before 2010. It was poorly communicated, maybe even improperly communicated. Come to the meeting tonight and learn something, rather than just judging me.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple head on Aug 25, 2014 14:08:36 GMT -4
Pausing on the construction of this particular shelter is my goal... I'd like the county to kick off a proper site selection process that places the needs of the homeless at the top of the priority list, rather than the ease of implementation on a particular piece of property. I don't believe this is detrimental to the people served by Haven Ministries. If the county were to pause on this, the people served by Haven Ministries would still be served as they are today in the existing facilities. I certainly am not against building a homeless shelter. Perhaps you should have asked for the study back in 2010 when they first proposed this project. Now it just looks like a stalling tactic to me. That is an unfortunate challenge for folks who did not even live here until more recently ... having been here all along, I don't recall this ever being a secret or conspiracy.
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 25, 2014 14:21:04 GMT -4
Perhaps you should have asked for the study back in 2010 when they first proposed this project. Now it just looks like a stalling tactic to me. That is an unfortunate challenge for folks who did not even live here until more recently ... having been here all along, I don't recall this ever being a secret or conspiracy. If I were the only one speaking up about this, maybe I'd agree with you, Pineapple. I live in a community full of long-time Kent Islanders (at least pre-2009 when notices began). Other than one volunteer at the existing shelter, not one resident was aware of this. I've spent time on foot in clover fields, not one person I met know. I've spoken to many Stevensville business owners, NONE KNEW!!! It's not just me pal, hundreds of residents were unaware. I don't know why I'm even posting this, because Pineapple is going to say something annoying, but maybe it'll help others realize that the transparency of this project has been opaque. Kent Island Citizens Shine Light On Lack Of Transparency County Timeline of Public Notice Called Into Question Stevensville, MD - Monday August 25 - On the morning of a long-awaited public meeting, questions continue to swirl around Queen Anne's County's efforts to publicize its construction of a full-scale homeless shelter on the site of an existing transitional shelter. The public presentation and citizen comment period will take place at 6 pm at the Percy Thomas Senior Center, 891 Love Point Rd. in Stevensville. A 1,248 square-foot ranch home, which the county purchased in 2009, is about to be replaced by an 8,623 square-foot, 2-story structure with a nearly 30-bed capacity. The site is at the end of a dead-end street at an entrance to the Cross-Island Trail, within full view of park and playground, and just a few hundred feet from Kent Island's high school, elementary school and dozens of homes. Hundreds of Stevensville residents use the trail, park and school complex every day and insist they were not consulted before plans for the new facility were approved. The Queen Anne's County board of commissioners, including at-large commissioner Jim Moran, have been providing citizens with a timeline of events to demonstrate that in fact, the public was informed. Moran was recently quoted in the Bay Times as saying "We have been totally transparent and have cut no corners." "Frankly, the commission's timeline is so full of errors and omissions that only an attorney can possibly determine whether there was an intent to deceive the public, or simply an appalling number of mistakes made," said Mike Ranelli, a spokesman for Save Our Stevensville. "The public deserves the facts, so we're just going to list a few inconsistencies we've discovered and let citizens decide for themselves whether transparent is a word they'd use to describe how they've been served." The following timeline was compiled based on county-provided information. The county's complete timeline and supporting documentation can be found at tinyurl.com/325statetimeline4/2/2009 - Letter from planning office to commissioners states "The house is located at 325 State St. We believe that this site is as good as possible to get for this type of activity due to the fact that it is surrounded by non-residential uses, and so will have limited impact on the residential community" 5/7/2009 notice of public hearing - no site address 5/12/09 news article - ranch house only. No location. No size or nature of future building. 5/12/2009 public grant application hearing - planning office tells commission "Site hasn't been determined" 5/19/2009 news article - No mention of size, location or nature 6/2/2009 - letter to State St. residents from homeless ministry omits site address, doesn't mention large future building, and was not sent to residents on many nearby streets 2/23/2010 Star Democrat article - no site address 8/12/2010 news article - “would like to eventually establish a permanent, cold-weather shelter in a new building...but Pettit says that is several years away…” 7/14/2011 Bay Times article - "strongly worded letter from state's DHCD office...disapproved of plans to demolish the existing transitional housing ranch home on State Street." 4/7/2012 notice of public hearing on grant request - no mention of homeless or emergency shelter 12/13/2013 - Site plan submitted by architect for review by planning office - public unaware 4/16/2014 - County requests proposals for construction 4/17/2014 - QAC online story on commissioners visit to serve at KIUMC Shelter in Chester includes no mention of construction plans, vague mention of expanding "transitional home building" even though only foundation will be retained and new building will be over 6x larger. 4/24/14 - Final site plan approval by planning department - public unaware 5/19/14 - building and demolition permit applications submitted by architect - public unaware 5/24/2014 - 30-day deadline for public appeal passes - public unaware 6/27/14 press release from Haven Ministries announcing shelter. - No city, no street, no location, no mention of homeless shelter, no capacity or number of beds 7/7/14 - QAC posts story online - No city, no street, no location, no mention of homeless shelter, no capacity or number of beds 7/9/2014 - story in Bay Times - no mention of capacity, number of beds, or emergency overnight shelter. no mention of possible year-round use 7/21/2014 - Citizen Andrew Redding invites officials to come to Stevensville for a meeting to answer questions 7/23/2014 - County notifies Mr. Redding that county will organize a structured meeting with a presentation from Haven Ministries 8/12/14 - Haven Ministries fact sheet published on QAC website. no mention of number of beds, capacity for emergency overnight or transitional clients. no discussion of new hours, new policies, no indication of how clients arrive and depart or how safety concerns will be addressed on trail, street, park, schoolyards 8/18/14 - county announces public meeting online - three weeks after scheduling. No mention of citizen opportunity to comment, states that to date, clients at this site have always been women and children.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple head on Aug 25, 2014 15:27:44 GMT -4
Let me be clear: I genuinely hope that people who truly have an open mind and attend tonight's meeting will leave satisfied. Unfortunately, those of us who have already developed a bias will likely find it more challenging to communicate reasonably and listen well; those pre-determined feelings, whether of support or opposition, will probably be tougher to sway. Regardless, I hope that it can be a courteous and respectful process on both sides.
I have been aware of the shelter project going back to it's earliest days of operation. While the homeless problem in our area is not particularly evident to most people, I had some awareness already even at that time (although I under-estimated it). And like a lot of the people who have concerns now, I too had some reservations about the shelter and those it would house. I have discovered most of my worries to be unnecessary and baseless.
I had anxiety about my wife and children volunteering ... but subsequently discovered there was little need for such alarm. Not only is the planning and staffing that is in place effective and compelling, the homeless that are served have not shown cause for alarm. The guests that patronize the shelter are happy to have food and a bed and willing to accept rules and restrictions that frankly discourage those who might have more opportunistic or even criminal leanings. I saw the individuals and families that were impacted positively -- not just the homeless guests, but also the volunteers that grew from the experience. From my current perspective, I'm quite glad that my children were exposed to this environment.
I understand the concerns, and even fears, surrounding this project and tonight's meeting. What I struggle with is the mean or callous nature of some comments. The personal attacks on the shelter director were unmerited and offensive. The spiteful suggestions to put the shelter in various politician's backyards are unconstructive pettiness. To state that you support the shelter, but not in your neighborhood, is an understandable human reaction -- but to then suggest someone else's neighborhood instead is callous and arrogant. And I am shocked by the bigotry in the repeated, less than subtle, suggestions that homeless are somehow predatory pedophiles targetting our children.
The homeless are here. They are already in the stores, at the library, on the trails. Crime already exists in these areas too, with or without the homeless! There is no conspiracy involved in this project. There has been no concerted effort at malicious secrecy. The public information campaign against this shelter has been a bit too vigilante in style, and nothing constructive is fostered by such an approach. You may have been unaware, you may have questions, and you have every right to disagree with the details. But don't lose sight of the human effort involved, driven by well-intentioned volunteers and serving a very legitimate need that you may underestimate. Keep your heart and mind open and let's air out the community concerns, but let's shelve the hostility, the bitter nastiness, the sarcastic and confrontational hyperbole.
Regardless of which side you take in this controversy, put aside the righteous indignation before coming in the door, and then do so with the most open mind possible. There is no need for or benefit to my defensiveness nor your offensiveness -- both are counter-productive. Let's have a rational (even cooperative) exchange of information, questions, concerns, answers and civilized discussion.
And the winter shelter starts in a few months -- everyone who cares about this issue should commit to volunteer at least once, and let that experience help to shape their opinions of the program, processes, and everyone involved.
|
|
|
Post by OscarsDad4 on Aug 25, 2014 15:38:02 GMT -4
Let me be clear: I genuinely hope that people who truly have an open mind and attend tonight's meeting will leave satisfied. Unfortunately, those of us who have already developed a bias will likely find it more challenging to communicate reasonably and listen well; those pre-determined feelings, whether of support or opposition, will probably be tougher to sway. Regardless, I hope that it can be a courteous and respectful process on both sides. I have been aware of the shelter project going back to it's earliest days of operation. While the homeless problem in our area is not particularly evident to most people, I had some awareness already even at that time (although I under-estimated it). And like a lot of the people who have concerns now, I too had some reservations about the shelter and those it would house. I have discovered most of my worries to be unnecessary and baseless. I had anxiety about my wife and children volunteering ... but subsequently discovered there was little need for such alarm. Not only is the planning and staffing that is in place effective and compelling, the homeless that are served have not shown cause for alarm. The guests that patronize the shelter are happy to have food and a bed and willing to accept rules and restrictions that frankly discourage those who might have more opportunistic or even criminal leanings. I saw the individuals and families that were impacted positively -- not just the homeless guests, but also the volunteers that grew from the experience. From my current perspective, I'm quite glad that my children were exposed to this environment. I understand the concerns, and even fears, surrounding this project and tonight's meeting. What I struggle with is the mean or callous nature of some comments. The personal attacks on the shelter director were unmerited and offensive. The spiteful suggestions to put the shelter in various politician's backyards are unconstructive pettiness. To state that you support the shelter, but not in your neighborhood, is an understandable human reaction -- but to then suggest someone else's neighborhood instead is callous and arrogant. And I am shocked by the bigotry in the repeated, less than subtle, suggestions that homeless are somehow predatory pedophiles targetting our children. The homeless are here. They are already in the stores, at the library, on the trails. Crime already exists in these areas too, with or without the homeless! There is no conspiracy involved in this project. There has been no concerted effort at malicious secrecy. The public information campaign against this shelter has been a bit too vigilante in style, and nothing constructive is fostered by such an approach. You may have been unaware, you may have questions, and you have every right to disagree with the details. But don't lose sight of the human effort involved, driven by well-intentioned volunteers and serving a very legitimate need that you may underestimate. Keep your heart and mind open and let's air out the community concerns, but let's shelve the hostility, the bitter nastiness, the sarcastic and confrontational hyperbole. Regardless of which side you take in this controversy, put aside the righteous indignation before coming in the door, and then do so with the most open mind possible. There is no need for or benefit to my defensiveness nor your offensiveness -- both are counter-productive. Let's have a rational (even cooperative) exchange of information, questions, concerns, answers and civilized discussion. And the winter shelter starts in a few months -- everyone who cares about this issue should commit to volunteer at least once, and let that experience help to shape their opinions of the program, processes, and everyone involved. I'm shocked at the decency of this response.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Aug 25, 2014 20:18:15 GMT -4
It's pretty clear what the "meeting" tonight will be.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Aug 25, 2014 22:32:34 GMT -4
Perhaps you should have asked for the study back in 2010 when they first proposed this project. Now it just looks like a stalling tactic to me. That is an unfortunate challenge for folks who did not even live here until more recently ... having been here all along, I don't recall this ever being a secret or conspiracy. 26 years here, heard of a LOT of stuff going on, some did, some didn't... Never heard a peep about this. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Aug 26, 2014 4:48:26 GMT -4
It's pretty clear what the "meeting" tonight will be.
|
|