I attended a rather disturbing public meeting here in Dallas a few nights ago. I say "disturbing" because that's the only word that comes close to doing the proceedings justice.
Contrary to how the meeting's advance billing, there was no real attempt to gain new understanding. The majority voice in the crowd was rude, offensive, angry and aggressively opposed to gaining any new information. The target of their anger was a new plan to house the chronically homeless in a part of a neighborhood near their homes and businesses.
People had come to rail against a plan to elevate and assist the poorest citizens who try to live among us with virtually no resources.
To be clear and fair, the meeting was not a new experience for me. I've been to meetings like this one before where the tenor and tone of the agenda and the happenings felt much the same. I suppose it was the size of the crowd and the attitude of those who interrupted the public leaders who attempted to bring reason and understanding to the event, mostly to no avail whatsoever that really surprised me.
As I left the very discouraging event, I noted a gleeful delight in the eyes of those who ruled the volume of the evening.
One aspect of the evening proved most instructive for me.
Greeters for the meeting had been selected from among the homeless, the people who would benefit from the housing plan that was to come under extremely harsh criticism. These brave people sat at the registration table, welcomed folks as they arrived and even attempted to testify before the angry crowd.
At one point, one of the public leaders made reference to the presence of the people who would benefit from the proposed housing plan.
An angry voice responded immediately, "Don't you do that to us! Don't parade these people before us to make us feel guilty!" the woman shouted at the top of her lungs.
I've replayed that moment over and over again in my mind.
I think it contains a truth that should be analyzed and considered carefully.
What sounded like a shout of protest may have been an appeal for protection. It was as if the woman knew that if she got to see and to know the people, the individuals in question, she would have to look at the entire matter differently. She might even be tempted to place her fear aside and get to know the people in such dire need.
It's true.
As long as the extremely poor can be categorized, stereotyped, objectified and kept at an impersonal, safe distance, the debate can rage on and on.
But as soon as the homeless poor gain an identity, become personal to us, as in friends with names and life stories and tears and fears, well, then we must regard them as they are: humans. Once you know some one's name, well, "game over." Recognition of identity shifts course to the point that community development becomes possible.
Don't bring them into our meetings. They might show us what we don't want to see--that they are just like us, but without all of benefits of adequate material resources to make life work.
I say the secret for moving through the current dilemma relative to our city's effective response to chronic, hardcore homelessness is round after round of face-to-face discussion with the homeless poor.
In fact, new rule: no more meetings about "the poor" without their presence in equal numbers for every discussion, and this includes our weekly City Council meetings.
What do you think?
28 comments:
One thing we can count on. You'll never give up. Over time, under altered circumstances, or using contorted language, weary voters will give you what you want. Like in California, where the voters denied at the ballot box gay marriage twice, then changed the state constitution, then heard the attorney general say he would refuse to enforce the constitution, and then saw the governor turn his back on voters, liberals know the game and play it well. Write another grant, Larry. We'll even pay you to work the system against us.
The "othering" of individuals by lumping them into a group truly does allow us to distance ourselves.
It is one thing to say that I am against providing health care for illegal immigrants. However, I'd say it is the rare heartless person that would refuse to chip in to save the life of a person when they have to be looked in the eye.
Thanks for sharing this Larry.
How's that hope and change working for you?
I totally agree with you! Everything is much easier to be against when it doesn't have a face.
I agree Larry, it is much easier to ignore a problem if real people aren't attached to it. Would be the reason agencies like Compassion International show us those sweet children's faces to get us to adopt one rather than just saying send $30 a month to the agency. Thank you for putting faces that have been changed in front of us all the time to show us the differences that are being made! God uses you in powerful ways!
PS. It is also easier to write attacking comments under anonymous than sign your name and own up to them.
Anon 8:58, I attempt to publish all comments. At times I am tempted to omit comments. My problem with your comment is that you don't have the courage to sign your name. But that is your choice.
You are correct: I won't give up as an advocate and a friend of folks who live in poverty. I don't think your attempts to connect me to a wide array of political issues is fair.
As to grants, I will keep writing them because that is how locales like Dallas recoup their tax dollars for local, community benefit. I'll keep feeing kids, educating workers, housing the homeless and attempting to get people who profess faith to make the connection to the values of that faith as they relate to the poor. I'll also hope to learn someday who all my Anons who post here really are.
"My problem with your comment is that you don't have the courage to sign your name."
So turn off the anonymous posting option.
"I will keep writing them because that is how because that is how locales like Dallas recoup their tax dollars for local, community benefit."
Thanks for your service. Don't know what we would do without you. Oh, wait. Maybe I could keep my tax dollars and distribute it myself - and it's been documented on this site that people freely give more of their own money than when taxed at higher rates.
I really don't think you were tempted to omit my comment b/c I did not sign my name. Rather, I think you wanted to omit my comment b/c I consistently support my arguments with evidence. You never manage to get back to me.
Anon 8:58:
Choosing not to sign your name is Larry's fault? Really? Can you be serious?
Evidence? What evidence? I see nothing but a diatribe, tirade, polemic, or ideological rant (take your pick), all dripping with sarcasm. Please point out your "evidence" concerning the subject of Larry's post and PSH.
I truly hope you're right, and I'm pretty sure you are, that Larry will never give up.
KTK
Dallas
KTK, you are a product of public education, no doubt. Read the many posts on this site by faithful and conservative anons, particularly those containing links to outside sources. Much evidence has been provided that the American people give more of their disposable income while those in more centrally planned economies give less.
What it pertinent here is that Larry moans b/c few churches and/or those who are conservative Christians support CDM. Then he uses government grants to pay himself and provide services to the poor, many in true need and some who simply know how to work the system.
This is the cyclical problem: as CDM and others draw tax dollars to operate, personal income decreases and people give less. This leads to the false proposition that people are stingy and hypocritical.
So, Larry, you can't have it both ways. You can't live on increasing taxes and expect people to give more of their personal income. The people who are upset about your projects are those who see govt. taxes taking more of their money away from them, observe job losses (theirs or people they know) b/c of failing spend-spend economic policies, and read in the newspapers how you are finding ways to redistribute their income.
Liberals contend that it is racism that angers citizens like those who caused a stir at the meeting Larry is referring to in this post. That claim used to scare conservatives, b/c most are nice people and don't want to be associated with such unseemly beliefs and behavior. But we're wising up.
By the way, KTK, I don't see any logic to your conclusion that my decision to post anon is Larry's "fault." And if its a matter of courage, as Larry suggests, KTK/DALLAS is roughly equivalent to ANON.
I was at the town hall meeting as well and felt very anxious throughout the meeting. So much negative energy was built up and it felt like one spark would light the whole room on fire.
I can sympathize with the North Oak Cliff residents because there was a major communication gap between DHA/the City of Dallas/MDHA and the community. Without allowing residents the opportunity to take ownership of [what should be seen as] positive changes in their community, DHA, et al took the first step in creating the "us v. them" mentality that nurtured this unfortunate hostility. Supposedly the City is taking steps to close the communication gap, but as in all things, time will tell the Truth.
Larry, I do agree that anonymity does protect us from having to change or feel compassion. I believe it's vital that face-to-face contact be a part of community change. While the attitude of community members was so sad to watch (i.e. "don't do this to us!" lady), I think the face-to-face contact really does need to be voluntary in order to be effective. From my perspective, it looked like DHA, et al. used the program recipients as a shield to protect them from their mistakes and a sword to get what they wanted - acquiescence - rather than as an equal at the same table. I don't think a huge town hall was the best setting to introduce them because, obviously, community members felt attacked and manipulated. Ideally program recipients would have been a part of the [non-existent] first discussions with community members a year ago. I hope DHA and Councilman Neumann include them in the upcoming discussions with community members because, not only will they benefit from the services offered through Cliff Manor, but I firmly believe they will positively contribute to the community in North Oak Cliff.
My last thought: Larry, have you read "The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart"? (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-America/dp/0618689354/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=IJYAJCETX88EV&colid=5R6HFD0YIEHD) It's on my wish-list so I haven't tackled it yet, but I wonder how the research in this book relates to your comments.
Thanks for your insight (and sorry for such a lengthy response)!
Everyone complains that Oak Cliff residents were not informed. Why should that be a concern? Are we informed about those who move in next door with the funds to afford such a move? Where is the concern for the civil and human rights of the very poor who simply want a clean, decent place to live. The DHA plan required no city vote. There has never been a requirement to inform neighbors about the use of housing choice vouchers or HUD funds for housing when the city is not involved. The vouchers were for qualified persons. To deny these people a place to live after they satisfied all requirements is a violation of federal law most likely. Who is concerned for the poor who are virtually powerless and without voice in this matter that would simply move them into a property that has been used for public housing for 4 decades? We are not thinking clearly here.
"Everyone complains that Oak Cliff residents were not informed. Why should that be a concern?"
You don't get it, Larry.
Anon 9:43, to the contrary, I completely get it. People w/o much money must prove themselves to people who have money. It's a new form of Jim Crow, the basis for a new, politically correct segregation. The persons who qualified to live in a new and improved Cliff Manor have rights that are as important as mine or yours. To pre-judge an entire group of people based on the bias and prejudice of persons around the property [who really don't understand, nor, based on the recent meeting, do not want to understand the plan to actually make Cliff Manor better than it has been in years] is a violation of everything that this nation and this city stands for. No one wants to deal with that fact. The current situation is a violation of fair housing laws. I would think that would concern all of us.
Inclusion, "giving voice," community - remember those words, Larry?
You and your liberal friends use them daily when attempting to get resources from the government and votes from middle class citizens. But now you wonder why anyone should be concerned the Oak Cliff citizens were not informed. When you need "voice" we just need to shut up and listen. I get it, now.
Also, regarding this statement: "To pre-judge an entire group of people based on the bias and prejudice of persons around the property ..." I think perhaps you are prejudging the property owners. These are not wealthy people. Anything of value they've accumulated took time, personal effort, patience, and some degree of planning.
I have said it before in other posts, it is fundamentally unfair to change the rules of the game on people who have relied upon those rules over a long period of time and are stuck with the results. The least we could do is be inclusive, listen, and recognize that community participation includes the concept of ownership. The residents of OC live there and should be able to influence the decision. Do you live there? Do you have claim to ownership? Do you have more right to ownership than any other property owners & residents?
Perhaps these questions will address many issues addressed on this blog: Who are you? What is your interest in where people live, what they eat, and whether or not they work? Or how they get medical care? (These truly are most important concerns. But I wonder why you have identified them as central to your efforts at this stage of your life.)
I know you were a pastor. So here are a few questions. Why did you leave that role? Could it be that serving in that role you believed you were not making enough of an impact, so you envisioned a new role and identified the poor as those you would serve?
But here is the crux of my questions: are you equipped to make the strategic decisions to address the concerns of the poor? Did your education and experience as a pastor prepare you for what you are now doing? There are many contradictions evident in the ideas I see on this blog, and in the efforts of CDM.
It is cheaper to give permanent, free housing to the homeless? Maybe, under certain circumstances this is true. But is it merely a direct cost problem? What does it mean to give permanent, legal dependent status to certain Americans but not others? What are the outcomes?
It is true that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and perform some jobs Americans won't do. But are all those who move illegally across the border have the same values and motives? Clearly not. Why would your policy solution pretend they do? What ratio of crime and dependence to hard work are you willing to accept? Why shouldn't our solution address the fullest range of immigration motives possible? Complex & time consuming, yes. But fair.
It is true that the poor need medical care, but the solution is not to make healthcare worse for everyone, and more expensive, too.
It seems, Larry, that your solutions to all these problems is based upon inadequate analysis. You identify the problems, but suggest results that cause many more problems.
Here's a study in strategy: You seek contributions from churches, but are then confused when the conservative churches won't pay up. As if, your liberal beliefs and practices are incidental too what you are doing with the contributions and how you go about it. This outcome has led you to attack conservative churches - for having principles and living by them.
There is one skill many pastors have - they preach a good sermon. After years of practice I'm sure you're a great communicator and that you often get what you want or ask for. Unfortunately, ethical leadership is more than talking. You've pulled together some vocal (yet, passive) followers - many of whom will no doubt defend you on this blog. But your solutions may be costing the Dallas community in significant ways, beyond financial.
All of these contradictions (like having a piano in the fellowship hall, but not permitting one in the sanctuary) is leading you to dissonance and then to frustration. So disjointed reasoning finally allows you to conclude things like "Everyone complains that Oak Cliff residents were not informed. Why should that be a concern?"
Try not to dodge.
Yours,
D. Taggart
As you said, the residents didn't understand the plan for Cliff Manor --that is why the communication piece is so important. No, it's not okay to make the decisions regarding Cliff Manor conditional upon the response and feedback of community residents (agreed--that would be a violation of civil rights), but in order to facilitate the process of understanding and even reconciliation between the current residents of North Oak Cliff and future Cliff Manor residents, some form of intentional communication IS necessary. The whole process has appeared very adversarial to me. Giving both the current and future residents the opportunity to be a part of the process would have allowed the project to be more collaborative than confrontational.
I am concerned that the future Cliff Manor residents will be moving into a hostile environment, due to no fault of their own. The beliefs and perceptions of the community are wrong, but they are real. I simply wish that those facilitating the program would have taken the extra time to at least attempt to prepare the community for receiving their new neighbors.
D. Taggart, I'll try to respond to your points/questions:
"Who are you? What is your interest in where people live, what they eat, and whether or not they work? Or how they get medical care? (These truly are most important concerns. But I wonder why you have identified them as central to your efforts at this stage of your life.)" My work is shaped by my faith and by my understanding of what that faith means in the world.
"I know you were a pastor. So here are a few questions. Why did you leave that role? Could it be that serving in that role you believed you were not making enough of an impact, so you envisioned a new role and identified the poor as those you would serve?" Yes, I served as a minister for almost 25 years. I left the role of pastor when asked to come to CDM in 1994, again because of my understanding of the message of my faith and the priorities I found in scripture and my understanding of same. I was not thinking of my impact but rather of my need to move closer to the concerns of God as I understood them.
"But here is the crux of my questions: are you equipped to make the strategic decisions to address the concerns of the poor? Did your education and experience as a pastor prepare you for what you are now doing? There are many contradictions evident in the ideas I see on this blog, and in the efforts of CDM."
I suppose others would need to judge this. And, you are welcome to reach your own conclusions. Three of the four churches I served were either very, very poor or in parts of the community that were poor--rural Arkansas, Shreveport, and downtown New Orleans. My seminary and graduate education helped me shape my understanding of theology and social reality, both present and historic. But, you are correct, I've not had training in social work, economics (beyond the requriements of a liberal arts degree) or housing. All that I've learned has been via reading and on the job training which I always admit to folks who ask. As to the contradictions, I am sure you are correct. Life w/o contradiction is likely the biggest contradiction of all. If you'd like to point some out, I'd try to respond.
"It is cheaper to give permanent, free housing to the homeless? Maybe, under certain circumstances this is true. But is it merely a direct cost problem? What does it mean to give permanent, legal dependent status to certain Americans but not others? What are the outcomes?" Here is an example of training, rather formal I might add, that I have received since coming to CDM. You are correct PSH is not only about cost savings for communities--we speak to that first because lots of people care about that most of all. My reason for promoting the development of PSH is the positive impact on the lives of previously very poor people. We've seen it here in Dallas in remarkable ways. And, we've traveled the nation observing such projects. They just work for people. Permanent housing functions like an intervention on a life that gives a person the chance to really start over. Respected research indicates that PSH affects real and lasting change 87% of the time for persons who before housing were homeless. Check out the website of the Corp for Supportive Housing.
End of part one!
"It is true that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and perform some jobs Americans won't do. But are all those who move illegally across the border have the same values and motives? Clearly not. Why would your policy solution pretend they do? What ratio of crime and dependence to hard work are you willing to accept? Why shouldn't our solution address the fullest range of immigration motives possible? Complex & time consuming, yes. But fair." I'll leave a debate about crime ratios to another day, except to say that the vast majority of the undocumented folks who get to Dallas and live and work here are like the rest of us, not criminals. I agree with you that we need comprehensive, broad immigration reform that includes border security and opportunity for immigrants to make a contribution to our national life.
"It is true that the poor need medical care, but the solution is not to make healthcare worse for everyone, and more expensive, too." You and I could debate this one for a long time, I expect. May be best just to agree to disagree. People are dying needlessly because we've allowed the practice of medicine to be bought and sold like a commodity.
"It seems, Larry, that your solutions to all these problems is based upon inadequate analysis. You identify the problems, but suggest results that cause many more problems." Given our fundamental differences in opinion and worldview, I can see how you would think this about me. Your point of view is your point of view and you are entitled to it.
End of part two!
"Here's a study in strategy: You seek contributions from churches, but are then confused when the conservative churches won't pay up. As if, your liberal beliefs and practices are incidental too what you are doing with the contributions and how you go about it. This outcome has led you to attack conservative churches - for having principles and living by them." My argument with the church when it comes to responding to the social reality of our time goes back much farther than the past 16 years. I do think that my personal opinions on many things that may be off-putting to you don't affect how we do our work at CDM and my opinions are truly just that: they are mine and they are opinions. The work of feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, caring for the sick and giving a measure of hope to the hopeless transcends opinion and ideology. When at these tasks, I expect you and I would agree more than we don't. My major criticism to the church has been a call to do something among those who need opportunity and help.
"There is one skill many pastors have - they preach a good sermon. After years of practice I'm sure you're a great communicator and that you often get what you want or ask for. Unfortunately, ethical leadership is more than talking. You've pulled together some vocal (yet, passive) followers - many of whom will no doubt defend you on this blog. But your solutions may be costing the Dallas community in significant ways, beyond financial." I won't try to disabuse you of your judgements of me or those who post here. I don't know what you mean when you say we are costing the Dallas community.
"All of these contradictions (like having a piano in the fellowship hall, but not permitting one in the sanctuary) is leading you to dissonance and then to frustration. So disjointed reasoning finally allows you to conclude things like "Everyone complains that Oak Cliff residents were not informed. Why should that be a concern?" The piano illustration is interesting. FYI I never accepted the notions of my family's denomination regarding music and, if I read you correctly, you are right, that sort of fallacy in practice contributed to my leaving for another church home so to speak. But, I'm not illogical in my statement about Oak Cliff, not if you uuderstand my commitment to and understanding of fair housing and the Fair Housing Act in the USA. The fact that people surrounding the housing project must sign off on it for the tenants to move in violates that value, that's all I meant.
"Try not to dodge." I hope I've not done that.
I appreciate knowing your name.
"The work of feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, caring for the sick and giving a measure of hope to the hopeless transcends opinion and ideology. When at these tasks, I expect you and I would agree more than we don't."
The central contradiction is that your method of securing resources for the poor eventually reduces the amount of resources provided to the poor, both on the macro level and the micro. If successful in getting the permanent housing for homeless in Oak Cliff their new neigbors will not forget how all this worked out. Will they give support in the future?
D. Taggart
D. Taggart, possibly just here we reach the point of our fundamental disagreement. Your concern for the future support of a group of folks in one neighborhood reminds me of the people who tell me that the church should do all of the work of caring for the poor. That if the church would just step up, the govt could get out of the business of helping the poor. The problem with this approach has to do with the scale of the problems involved. Same is true with the neighborhood. Even more important, one doesn't set aside what is right and also scalable in exchange for some notion of future contributions. We've never done that in our organization. What is most ironic about this one situation is the fact that had the people simply moved in and started living there, no one would have noticed anything different, except possibly improvements to the property and the programming had they come close enough to see what was going on. Permanent Supportive Housing works, both for the homeless and their neighbors. It would work at Cliff Manor.
Sorry, Larry, but I just don't see how you are addressing the inherent absurdity of promoting a liberal society yet using methods that limit communication (in this instance), while in other instances obfuscate, manipulate, and dictate against the will of a clear majority. Examples of these behaviors are numerous, but the the health care program driven by the democrats is a great example. Also, the financial accountability bill just signed. As we learn more about the healthcare law we find the financials promoted by the liberals don't represent the truth. Even the budget office analysis was withheld until after the vote and then that office sent out a warning that their data was not fully used in the debates. And the finance law is not fully understood by those who voted for it. Yet we are told these are good changes.
By the way, Germany just hiked its healthcare tax to 15% of gross income. I've had some pretty expensive insurance, but it's never come close to a figure like that. The truth has been hidden, but it will come out. What do you think will happen to a candidate running for office as a Democrat in8 years, once the total impact of healthcare is realized? What about amnesty for illegals aliens? It is absurd to pretend you can claim to be liberal and yet use the methods of the obama administration and the democrat party.
One of your posters, Sarah, is trying - in the nicest way - to tell you that communication was poorly handled. Yet, you don't see a need for communication. In the most previous post you seem to be toying with the notion of just moving people in and the neighbors won't notice. Will that be your strategy next time CDM is engaged in a similar process? Property owners will notice eventually, when their property appraisals begin dipping.
D. Taggart
D Taggart, I'm not going to get into the issues of national politics. We just won't agree.
But, as to property values and Permanent Supportive Housing the national data shows that these housing efforts don't affect area property values in a negative way at all. Worst case is no impact up or down. Most cases reflect improved values. And yes, we have apts and have had them in North Dallas and in the southern sector in which formerly homeless folks lived with our support and in each case these folks and our program had a postivie affect on the properties and no one knew that these tenants--now getting their lives in order--were even there. That is the best proof of the effectiveness of the method. Mr. Bush's last Sec of HUD even visited our project and shed tears listening to the story. We had one large proeprty owner from whom we leased tell us to bring all the folks we could his way because the people were an asset to the property.
You see, apart from the civil rights issues associated with the Fair Housing Act being a major concern of mine, the strategy simply works. If you go to our website to the video section you can find face-to-face testimony about the effort. The fears of Oak Cliff are misplaced and based on mythological conceptions of who homeless persons are. Sorry, it's just the truth. Best to you.
Half true & half false. Which is a better true ratio than many of your liberal friends. What you are attempting to do is obfuscate the issue - remember, I told you about that tactic, so I don't know why you would try it so quickly in this post.
There is a difference between low income housing assistance and permanent, homeless housing projects. Yes, a low-rent district prefers projects like yours because the government pays its bills consistently. Homeless people don't pay rent, but Uncle Sam does and there are no payment gaps when people move out.
But the story is different when you look at what permanent housing does to an area with high income potential - which turns into a economic advantage for many people outside that area. Here is a conclusion from a study about the impact of permanent homeless housing in the Dallas central business district:
"Recognizing the need to provide a central facility for delivering services to
homeless persons, the Dallas City Council is currently considering a proposal to locate a
homeless assistance center (HAC) inside the downtown loop. While the Council’s
intentions are laudable, locating the HAC across from the Farmers Market would be a serious mistake that could have negative consequences for the multifaceted efforts
currently underway to revitalize downtown and turn it into a 24-hour residential,
commercial and entertainment hub. Indeed, the experience of Miami and other cities
that have successfully revitalized their downtowns indicates that providing services to
homeless persons at a site close to, but away from, the central business district is the
single most important factor in stimulating downtown renewal.
Much is at stake. Our research has determined that the southern half of downtown can potentially support at least 2.2 million square feet of new commercial,
office and residential space, and this development scenario would create more than 5,000
new jobs and generate about $6.6 million per year in much-needed revenue for local
taxing entities. But such development is likely to be discouraged if a HAC is located in
downtown."
http://www.unt.edu/cedr/homelessstudy2005.pdf
Numbers and evidence, please.
D. Taggart
D Taggart, you begin talking about housing (please visit the webiste for Corporation for Supportive Housing and do some research to understand what PSH actually is) and then quote the campaign literature from the business group that tried to defeat the Bridge development after citizens, city-wide voted bond funding to approve it. Interestingly, two of the strongest opponents of the Bridge development and the funders behind the campaign had an open mind and now are proponents and developers of the same product themselves.
You make a real mistake though when you quote info about the Bridge in an attempt to argue against PSH downtown or in a neighborhood. The Bridge is a service center. It does not provide housing, permanent housing for people.
Tisk, tisk, tisk. . .and our accuse ME of obfuscation!
Bottom line: people have a right to live wherever they want if they have the means to secure the housing and if they don't violate the law or endanger others.
"...people have a right to live wherever they want if they have the means to secure the housing and if they don't violate the law or endanger others."
We agree. People have that right. My quote of the report was NOT to condone the USE of the report, merely to use the data in the report to refute a basic claim. No harm or obfuscation intended.
Public housing does make an impact on the economic potential of any given neighborhood or district and not simply on immediate property values. I can see in some worn and unkempt neighborhoods that a consistent governing presence, even when it is a housing authority providing property supervision of a supportive housing project, that property values would even increase. You've said that much in earlier posts. I can also see the rights of property owners to disagree at public meetings and to be frustrated over process.
The outcome of giving housing to homeless on the basis of a controlled/limited cost analysis smacks of every other runaway government program I've seen in my lifetime. Once the spigot is turned on, it is never turned off.
There are consequences to half-baked ideas. What is the price of trust?
D. Taggart.
I beg to differ, D Taggart. Permanent Supportive Housing is not a half baked idea, nor is it usually located in "public housing." It is relatively new and it works.
It's both new and a success, per your declaration. Now where have we heard this before?
Post a Comment