Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Compassion needed

August 10, 2008

Advertisement

To the editor:

As a member of one of the churches participating in the Family Promise program, I deplore the attitude of the neighbors of the proposed day center for homeless families. It's the typical "not in my backyard" response which is unfortunately so familiar. Please, folks, show some compassion for the less fortunate, inform yourselves to alleviate your fears and, above all, be grateful that you, at least, have a place you can call home.

Eva Edmands,
Lawrence

Comments

simplemind 5 years, 8 months ago

i bet the families in iraq didn't want bombs in their backyards, but i bet most of you supported that! and we throw up ours hands about displaced families... humanity confuses me.

0

simplemind 5 years, 8 months ago

these homeless families that we speak of that are going to be supported by family promise must be screened for a number of things, such as drug test, sex offenders, criminal histories, etc. it could be just as easy for the owner of the property to rent to anybody without these screens, but actually confronting a social issue, such as homelessness because of a failing economy, death of a loved one or whatever the reason may be is a noble thing to do. more folks should open the hearts to the issues that every community faces and stop being so worried about the negative effects. negativity only breeds within the mind. if one expects a negative result, one will get such a result, but having faith that the community could actually address such issues will be a positive thing with positive results. is it really any different from the past twenty years when there have been a number of homeless families, individuals, or ex-cons that have resided there? it was not a problem when ones were unaware of their neighbors doings, but now when it is actually brought to their attention out of respect they want to throw a fuss about it. maybe these people who pretend to be so involved should try to open their eyes to what has been passing them by for so many years before. so unaware, really:. maybe they are new comers who want to make this community something it is not. maybe someday their family will be displaced and they will have no where to go: then maybe would they have wished they would have allowed such a project into their lives. oh, but that would never happen to you, would it? just close your eyes and go back to sleep. we'll raise the community above and beyond without ya!

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

I personally appreciate your thoughtful contributions and share your hope but perhaps not your faith in the planners' intentions. I think the concern of a lot of us is that the discussion between planners and neighbors has not "just started." There was supposed to be a sales pitch and we were supposed to accept it as is. Family Promise has a model that it implements. It was my impression from the meeting--clearly different from yours, and I respect your point of view--as well as the correspondence to the city that followed (see link above that Father Barker provided) that the planners didn't plan on working with the neighbors. I don't think, for instance, that they're prepared to consider housing a family there full-time, or changing the number of people there, or having the neighborhood involved in their "rigorous screening process" (which to me is rather beside the point, since in my humble opinion people with drug problems are actually as worthy of assistance as "children and their families"). I know the impression is that there was a visceral reaction to the homeless/poor; I'm very upset that that's the impression that many people have gotten. Most of the people I've spoken to have responded with chagrin to the way this thing has been handled from the outset, and to the implications of the changes in the planning code.The issue was deferred tonight without the opportunity (yet) for spoken public comment. Hopefully the city staff and the neighborhood associations can come up with better language for the code changes to make this better for all concerned--the housed and the homeless both.

0

mrdarcybennet 5 years, 8 months ago

I too was at the neighborhood meeting with the family promise planners. It struck me that as a first conversation between concerned neighbors and committed social servants, there was much fodder for continued discussion. It would have been better to see the planners taking notes on neighbors' concerns. Perhaps they will read this and come prepared for more formal exchange at the next meeting - which will be held in the next week or two by what I heard. One of my goals for the meeting was to learn about the program and to try to visualize how it would fit into my neighborhood. Because so many people brought so many questions it was difficult to hear answers to every question and difficult at times even to hear all the questions brought to the floor. Again, maybe there will be a more formal meeting soon to continue learning about the program so that we can make an informed decision about how to proceed. It might not be a good fit for our neighborhood but I don't think we know enough about it as a community to make that decision at this point. From what I heard there are several Family Promise day centers operating in residential neighborhoods across the country. It occurs to me that the Ballard Center, United Way and Penn House are all located in residential neighborhoods as well. I'm not sure if we can make a blanket statement that social services for poor and homeless families do not belong in residential neighborhoods. Protesting too loudly at this point when the discussion between planners and neighbors has just started does, unfortunately, seem tinged by visceral prejudice toward the poor as Ms. Edmands implied. One more point: what some folks heard as poor planning I heard as flexibility and an openness to neighbors' input in fleshing out the plan for the day center's use. The planners mentioned developing a good neighbor agreement that would respond to some neighbors' practical concerns. That seems like a good idea no matter where the day center is located.

0

revshackleford 5 years, 8 months ago

Dear tjhoops69,"this is not some willie nellie drug addict"...I'm tired of your vile attitude regarding my favorite country singer!!Seriously, though, tj, from where do you deduce that the "people" of Lawrence have a vile attitude towards the homeless? What is your representative sample? For a non-judgmental person...you fill in the rest.The HOUSE ON Rhode Island HAS ISSUES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH COMPASSION!!! Why do some people who want to talk about how hateful Barker neighborhood is refuse to acknowledge this? This is a hundred-year old house that was on the market for well over a year--when houses are listed in this neighborhood, they rarely stay on the market for a month! I'm told by people who are familiar with and have been in the house that it has structural issues and one bathroom--this is the house where fourteen people are going to shower and do laundry! Does this sound suitable for fourteen people? It might work for two families, but if one dares to question anything about Family Promises's proposal or suggest an alternative, he/she is branded a "homeless hater!" Lastly, tj, how do you know so much about FPs background checks? I and one other person asked their reps about it, and they said it is performed by them, and even they had to admit that a lot of people with problems relating to substance abuse, domestic violence, etc. never enter the legal system. TJ, I grew up in a low income, single parent household with plenty of alcoholics,druggies and even one or two domestic violence victims (friends my mom took in) around, and I don't recall one of them ever having legal problems. All I'm saying is please don't be so quick to judge other people as haters, unless you have a giant, karma-proof umbrella yourself.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

max1:Family Promise's day center is in an industrial area in JoCo, according to their spokesperson.I'm actually all for housing the homeless. But again, apples and oranges. This proposed center is not housing. It is a day center for up to 14 people in a regular residential house.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

Does Johnson County shuttle their homeless families off to industrial zones?http://www.rushproperties.com/Outreach.phpJames 217 aspires to provide housing for financially disadvantaged families in the Johnson County, Kansas area by providing a rent-free home to families for a period of 12 months. The first family moved into a James 217 home in April 2007 and the second family moved in January 2008. Our 5 year goal is to provide not just two James 217 homes, but a total of five. JoCoIHN is a nonprofit organization serving homeless families in Johnson County, Kansas. Their mission is to unite and enable the faith community to provide homeless families with emergency shelter and meals, as well as compassionate assistance with social services, and relationships with caring people in the faith community. Families are screened prior to acceptance into the program.

0

tjhoops69 5 years, 8 months ago

crazyleaflady ............not a judgement, but rather a fact. You see I work with homless people, and yes there are people who sleep under the bridge who have no interest whatsoever in getting themselves out of that situation.Family promise is different, as I mentioned, they do a rather extensive background check on the families coming in. this is not some willie nellie drug addict off the street who lost their home to their drug habit. These are families whose job suddenly laid them off and it only took one paycheck to end up homeless, or widows where their husbands died suddenly, its really sad that the people of lawrence have such a vile attitude against the homeless, but I always say...Karma is a Bit$*!

0

tonythetiger 5 years, 8 months ago

I could have used some compassion as well... when I tried to get a degree without having to pay bribes to do it.Let's see instead of paying for your lessons which I think you could have offered for free. I could get: 1) tools to employ myself in my free time because you don't want to be around me all the time.2) buy a better car3) get some more musical instruments4) get a better bike5) go on a vacation6) fund some hobbies I have wanted to try like airbrush painting7) update this lousy computer and get more software.8) buy myself more boomerangs and a compound bowNO, instead with the piddly earnings I make. I should spend all my money on events that promote you like watching you throw footballs and bounce basketballs. I kind of want to see a real good tennis match and I have a hard time finding a racquetball partner. I as well, have some more boomerangs I would like to get. So why don't you go buy a dozen donuts with your friends and sit in that building of yours and say things about God to get in that girl's pants like you are really are trying to do and plot of how you need to tell me how to spend my money and time.

0

tonythetiger 5 years, 8 months ago

So let's kick out all the residents in favor of leeches that want to sponge all the spare change they can off everyone for that next beer? Great. Let's re-zone the whole area and make it a "hang out Zone" I'm zonin' man. I don't think the fire codes matter anymore.Santa Cruz is a better hang out place.

0

BigPrune 5 years, 8 months ago

They need two of these houses, one south of Clinton Pkwy on Kasold, and one at 15th & Monterey. The neighbors won't fight it at all.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

9 June 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/videos/2008/jun/09/18928/bearded_gnome (Anonymous) says: max, you are a feckless idiot. the quote you attribute to me is: *out of context; and 2, written when very little was actually released to the public.you are using this tragedy to try to throw mud at your political opponents . . . you too are guilty of trying to politicize this tragedy . . . both young men died suddenly. . . had no time to prepare their souls for their deaths.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"Maxy, you slimed me on the 1311 delaware st. shooting, when i wrote a genuinely thoughtful post recognizing the suddeness of the deaths of those two young men, the waste of their lives. . . I've heard from posters who were shocked by your behavior in that." -slobbering_gnomeYou jumped to a false conclusion, plain and simple, and your subsequent attempts to cover that up by pretending you were concerned about how the 2 victims didn't have time to prepare to see their maker was feeble and laughable. I'll repost my horrible "slime" so that all your cronies can be shocked again! In case there is any question, I provided a link so they can read the comments in context.June 8, 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun/07/2_men_dead_after_shooting_1300_block_delaware/Shooting leaves 2 deadcomments:"How much do you want to bet the shooters are from Topeka?" -bartstop"The shooting happened about 500 feet away from a housing project. Seven rapid fire shots from a semi-automatic handgun means panic: not talking about the tri-plexex. Talking about 1600 Haskell Ave." -DGL"There is no mention of a "semiautomatic" hangun" -Marion"i was also wondering if anyone knew who the two were or if they were black or white?" -crosstownbytch1"Black" -b3"those two men died suddenly, without time to prepare." -bearded_gnome"Two people had guns and both were in illegal possession of firearms. This was a gunfight between criminals." -Marion"$100.00 says 2 or more people involved in this incident were out on parole." -christie"the 16 year old was definitely in illegal possession." -Marion

0

tonythetiger 5 years, 8 months ago

I have seen the outreach center at 9th and Tennesse. I think they can keep their grubby little paws off me and reach out to someone else.I don't want their help.Churches don't come a knocking at my door.

0

bearded_gnome 5 years, 8 months ago

one could argue that having been in a family that hid from oppressive government measures that tore away their private property including their home, she'dhave more awareness of how government's actions hurt people's private property rights and personal security.now, I've turned the tables on ol' maxy-none with his own irrelevant citation.--bearded_gnome, earlierfrom this, somehow, maxy1 gets something about property values? QED, we see here maxy's impaired ability to grasp basic reading. ***jonas(Anonymous)says:Shoot Gnome, I was going to warn you that pointing out that Max relies on cut-paste and links with sparse filling of personally produced invective, forthe most part, results immediately in a flood of obsessively archived posts that you made, and the lead-in to a comparison with Stewart Smalley, whichlooks like is being set up in the 7:47 posts. It slipped my mind.It's an impressive list for you. The best he can do to justify his characterization of me as a producer of "foaming tirades" and "hissy fits" is that Ionce said that he was "distasteful." haha.---jonasfunny thing, maxy doesn't really dispute or disprove anything I said about him and only serves to put his inadequacies under a spotlight! as nota said, at least my posts are my own ideas! Unlike maxy, I actually can write, form coherant thoughts. And, best of all I can stand up to a petty little-minded bully like maxy. Maxy shows why we must never vote democratic and empower people like him.

0

bearded_gnome 5 years, 8 months ago

just to set the record straight,I'm being misreferenced above. please reread my first post. in the process of responding to a troll (maxy1) its being missed that i said that much hinges on how well the management of this day shelter manages security and the people allowed to stay there. further, I said that here in lawrence, the "open shelter" and its population has turned many of us against the homeless in general. I said that the Salvation Army had good policies and they expect better things from those who stay there. I also said directly to ms. edmands that it seemed like she and others were being compassionate with someone else's neighborhood. its always easier to be compassionate with other people's lives and circumstances.

0

bearded_gnome 5 years, 8 months ago

okay,this was quite a laugh riot reading maxy's posting, reposting, and rereposting. max1: I don't really care much to have this argument again, as it hasn't changed. You misread my (rather specific) post, misunderstood my intent in yourown presumptions, and without gaining a complete understanding launched a derogatory attack, and I allowed you to go forward with that misconception intentionallybecause I, frankly, thought it would be a good demonstration of the importance of not doing those things, especially the last one. And, of course, becauseit was highly entertaining to watch you do it.---JonasMaxy,your actions on this list have proven what I've been writing about you. and, you don't happen to include what put me really on to you:you slimed me on the 1311 delaware st. shooting, when i wrote a genuinely thoughtful post recognizing the suddeness of the deaths of those two young men, the waste of their lives. I've heard from posters who were shocked by your behavior in that. indeed, I stand by what I said regarding women and physical abuse, that comes from my professors and research. women are equally capable of domestic violence. your actions here have demonstrated what I said, you post irrelavancies, your lacking in the ability to argue or understand others' posts. thanks Maxy.

0

stillcoolandhere 5 years, 8 months ago

Compassion is a rightwinger using a large handgun to kill those they hate....

0

basil 5 years, 8 months ago

Everyone needs to read the code changes that this whole issue is dependent upon. Does everyone realize that the new proposed changes include the provision that type A night shelters for up to 15 people can be opened up in any not-for-profit in almost all residential areas in the city? That the code will allow for day centers that aren't even as well-regulated as Family Promise (and there are plenty of issues that they haven't addressed or hadn't considered)?There are a lot of things worth thinking and talking about here, for the sake of the city, individual property owners, and the homeless. This issue will be discussed at the city commission mtg this Tuesday and then hopefully again if they defer a decision.

0

stillcoolandhere 5 years, 8 months ago

The redstate bible beaters out on the west side are NOT compassionate. They care less about others and only for thier money and church.

0

Bowhunter99 5 years, 8 months ago

Lawrence is the 2nd meanest city in the WORLD for dealing with Homeless? C'mon... you can't possibly believe everything people tell you... Do you?and you could not tell Lawrence is #2 by the large amount of drunks and drug users parked at 10th & Mass... I'm sure they've beaten and arrested every day by the police...

0

malcolm_x_obama 5 years, 8 months ago

In the spirit of logical progressive thought, why don't we just eat the poor. "A Modest Proposal", let's just eat their young. Day care issue solved!

0

revshackleford 5 years, 8 months ago

Lady_at_church,Even the Holy Bible encourages good planning (see Luke 14:28-29). I realize you have already reduced this to a black or white issue (if this house isn't used, Barker neighborhood hates homeless families), but I still want to point out (again) that compassion is far from the only issue. There are a lot of practical concerns to address, and it won't help anyone to rubber stamp a poorly thought out program, regardless of its good aims.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

....And I'd love to see people to address the comments from people in the neighborhood without recourse to this language that 'families' and/ or 'children' are somehow more valuable or worthy of compassion than single people or people with substance abuse problems. Yes, the nature of the center and its occupants is relevant, but these value judgments about those who aren't included in the plan are irrelevant--and, frankly, damned surprising for church people hurling abuse at the Barker neighborhood's lack of compassion.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

Are you reading the actual comments on this letter OTHER than max1, not_a_jayhawk, and bearded_gnome? There are a lot of questions and issues that are coming from people who ARE informed, who have nothing against the program or against homeless people. I hope someone will address them.

0

jonas 5 years, 8 months ago

"Obviously, you, notajayhawk and the slobbering_gnome think spitting venom at me"Oh man, Max1, the irony inherent in some of your posts is truly. . . inspiring. Well, I'll leave you to an undoubtedly harmonious discussion on homeless issues. Have a good time.

0

tjhoops69 5 years, 8 months ago

By the way, I just found out from a friend that Lawrence KS was voted the 2nd meanest city in the WORLD, for dealing with the homeless............wow this is something to be proud of lawrence.

0

lady_at_church2 5 years, 8 months ago

I received 35 blog entires to my lettter to the editor (compassion) How easy it is to write hate mail when you know your name won't be printed! FYI: I WAS homeless for three years. That's why I can relate to others who are homeless through no fault of theirs. I live in a mixed, working class neighborhood, not wealthy enclave.If you have informed yourselves you should know that the day center is not for drunken, single vagrants but for families with children who also are homeless through no fault of theirs, that the families are rigorously screened, and that it is a DAY center, not a homeless shelter. So, please, get your facts straight,Isn't it astonishing how unreasonable fears bring out the worst in people? The vituperative nature of some of your comments was totally uncalled for.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

'Secondly these are not transiets as some of you call them, these are "family" only homeless people, these are not the drunks who live under the bridge and dont ever want to do anything to make their situation better.....You cannot judge a man until yourve walked a mile in his shoes, so how many of you have lost your jobs and you and your families have had to sleep in cars or try to find food for your children from trash?'(I'm sorry, but I can't resist pointing out that it seems you're willing to judge the drunks under the bridge pretty quickly.)

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

"Transient" is not evaluative; it is descriptive. It describes those "passing through or by a place with only a brief stay or sojourn." I think the people opposed to the site have been less venomous than those accusing them of heartlessness. They--we--are understandably frustrated at the lack of consultation, consideration, and planning. I would like to see those who are "angry" at the neighborhood respond to the ACTUAL comments by those in the neighborhood posted above, rather than just launching well-meaning platitudes back our way. The responses from the neighborhood haven't been spoken with one voice, by the way, and I don't want to paint them as such--nor should anyone here assume they know what the entire neighborhood feels. There were a range of feelings and ideas expressed at the neighborhood meeting. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as if anyone on the planning side really wanted to hear them.

0

tjhoops69 5 years, 8 months ago

Along with some information that has been given, unfortunately not enough has been given to make a fair judgement. First of all, the people who would be using the facilities have a background check done on them before they are allowed to enter the program or the building. Secondly these are not transiets as some of you call them, these are "family" only homeless people, these are not the drunks who live under the bridge and dont ever want to do anything to make their situation better.These are families who like most of us are 1 paycheck from being homeless, and who have children, so what is the big deal?? and yeah that neighborhood IS in my backyard, and I have no problem with it, its a family oriented shelter and its only families who have been screened. No other shelter offers that, no other shelter cares what the background is, cause the more people they can get in there the more money they can secure from the govmt. This is not going to take your tax dollars and its not going to cost you a penny. Lawrence has never been known as a compassionate city, in fact the opposite is quite true! In this instance I hope the shelter wins and all those who opposed it with such vile and venom come to know what Karma is really all about.You cannot judge a man until yourve walked a mile in his shoes, so how many of you have lost your jobs and you and your families have had to sleep in cars or try to find food for your children from trash?? When you can tell me that you have done this, then I would be more inclined to listen to you, until then, live and let live, stop being so judgemental and so fussy about everything, life is to short to be worried about who lives in your neighborhood.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"max1: You misread my (rather specific) post, misunderstood my intent in your own presumptions, and without gaining a complete understanding launched a derogatory attack" -jonasMaybe you shouldn't have posted you comments when you were obviously angry and drunk. You set the tone, and it was you who attacked -- not me. Anyone who read that string of comments would have to be insane to believe otherwise. Early on, somebody made a comparison between the consumption of alcohol and smoking pot, and I followed up on his post. Then you got pissed because I wouldn't jump through your hoops, and you are derailing this thread in the same manner. Obviously, you, notajayhawk and the slobbering_gnome think spitting venom at me is more important than a discussion about providing housing to homeless families. If the people who are objecting to this shelter are afraid it will devalue their properties as the gnome suggested, then they should simply say so. The gnome insinuated that the lesson that should have been learned from the holocaust was how to protect your property values by placing restrictions on who can live in your neighborhood.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

pamelabaughman writes "'...this thread brings back to me the outpouring of fear I saw in some of my neighbors when a group home for handicapped adults was proposed for my neighborhood. Yes, MY neighborhood. I was appalled at the reaction of some of my "friends" whom I had always considered compassionate and whose children had been to my house where one of those scary retarded adults lived - my son. I am pleased that the city commission permitted the group home in a "use permitted upon review" . The home has now been a fixture in our neighborhood for some years.I just don't know why we should expect the homeless and less fortunate to live in industrial-use neighborhoods, or anything less homey than what we expect for ourselves. I agree with 1029 - these kids need good homes, good neighbors, good support systems, good schools - and it takes a village. We all must be part of that village."In the talk of "fear" and "compassion", there has been a lot of mixing of apples and oranges. Let me reiterate: this is NOT a home. It is a temporary day center. It does not provide night shelter. The residents move on in shorter order than most short-term renters. There will be up to 14 people in the house, plus volunteers and the day staff. Yes, these people need HOMES. This won't be one of them. In the meantime, they need a site to help them network, do laundry, shower, and get counseling. That kind of site does not need to be in a residential neighborhood.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

I note that rev_shackleford anticipated many of my comments while I was tinkering with my edits. My apologies for being redundant (and grumpier).

0

Bowhunter99 5 years, 8 months ago

12th & Prospect is a great area for this experiment.

0

crazyleaflady 5 years, 8 months ago

I share the annoyance of people wagging fingers and saying NIMBY when it isn't their BY involved. Indeed, I believe Ms. Edmands lives quite far from this particular BY.The long and the short of it is this: this is going to be a day center, NOT a house for a homeless family. The neighbors who resist this move want to continue this site as a house. But according to the descriptions of the place (which have been contradictory, I must say, having seen the videos and website, been to the meeting, and read the description sent by the lawyers), it is a place where families--up to 14 people--go to hang out, surf the Internet, shower, and do laundry. There is only one full-time staffer on site, and only for 5 days, even though the center is open for 7. (There will be volunteers). The majority of these folks will move out within 2 or 3 months, by the program's own statistics. So WHY should it be in a residential neighborhood? It isn't going to be used as a residence! I After 5, the place gets locked up and is empty. One of the people present at the meeting suggested that one or two of the several buildings owned by St John's Church might be used for Family Promise. That's a mixed use area with a small playground, near South Park. Given the number of parishioners from St John's involved in the project, perhaps this would be another option? Or perhaps Ms. Edmands could ask her church to provide a day center so these families wouldn't actually have to be shuttled around to one of 10 different churches every night at 5?I'm annoyed that the Family Promise folks didn't take notes at the neighborhood meeting or indeed show any sign that they had any other plans for a day site for their program, for which they have been raising money for some months. Indeed, they had placed an ad for the director of the day center that ran on the very day the neighborhood meeting, which would suggest they assumed this was a done deal. The letter above kindly posted by Father_Barker reinforces that belief.Perhaps if Family Promise had met with the neighborhood early on and discussed options, there could have been a compromise. But it doesn't seem like location-specific alternatives are an option for the Family Promise program, which is a package deal. I'm amazed that the planners never considered the possible problems that might arise moving a program like this into a residential neighborhood (they're often in industrial areas).Projects like these should move from the grassroots up. They should not be imposed from outside. If my neighborhood wanted an empty lot to be a community garden, I'd be all for it once the neighborhood met to discuss it, particularly taking into account the feelings of those on each side of the property. If someone living west of Kasold decided our empty lot should be a community garden, I think I'd have a few words for them, as much as I believe in community gardens.

0

revshackleford 5 years, 8 months ago

One more thing. This sounds smart alecky but is not intended as such: what if one of the hosting churches also hosted the day shelter? It is great that churches are opening their spaces to these families for shelter, but it seems like it would be kinder to people who are living in unstable situations to not have to be shuttled back and forth everyday. For instance, does St. John's have property in the vicinity that could host a day shelter, at least for a few years? It's close to the park, close to downtown, close to some schools. Just something to consider.

0

revshackleford 5 years, 8 months ago

I wonder if the author of this letter was at the meeting, because I was. A couple of neighbors seemed visibly angry, but by and large the discussion was civil and many good questions were raised. It seemed that, for many people asking questions, the problem was not that the day shelter would be in our neighborhood, but that the planners had not taken many things into account that they might not be aware of simply because they don't live in this neighborhood. The meeting was supposedly for the planners to address neighborhood concerns, but I don't think the planners cared all that much what the neighbors thought because I didn't see one of them actually taking notes or writing down issues that need to be addressed. If you were actually to talk to residents of this neighborhood, I believe you would find that compassion is not what is lacking, but rather planning on the part of the people who want to put the shelter in this neighborhood. Just to provide one example: the shelter would operate 7 days/week, but there would be no director present on the weekends. This makes little sense, because the weekends would seem to be the time when you would need an experienced, capable hand at the helm since the kids would not be in school, increasing the activity at the home. Also, although this is not a small house, I don't think it was designed or intended to house 14 people plus a director plus however many volunteers will be on hand. There are many, many things to consider, and the planners need to do so and perhaps actually invite some neighbors to planning sessions; that way they might learn some practical things about the neighborhood that would help their project proceed.

0

jonas 5 years, 8 months ago

max1: I don't really care much to have this argument again, as it hasn't changed. You misread my (rather specific) post, misunderstood my intent in your own presumptions, and without gaining a complete understanding launched a derogatory attack, and I allowed you to go forward with that misconception intentionally because I, frankly, thought it would be a good demonstration of the importance of not doing those things, especially the last one. And, of course, because it was highly entertaining to watch you do it. As for the rest of the post, yes I know all of those things, and I did then. It neither changes my original point nor invalidates it in the slightest. The fact that there are difficulties and dangers associated with the criminalization of drugs does not mean that there are none that could be associated with the legalization and decriminalization of all drugs.

0

lily 5 years, 8 months ago

It's a day time facility only for families if I remember correctly. It's close enough to my neighborhood and literally across the street from a school. While I don't have the issues with this type of facility I have seen first hand what opening up your doors to the homeless who are turned away from other shelters can do. A local school has had issues with people using the bathroom etc when there are children around. They've been told to stay away when school is in session but they don't. Not that they are all bad people but some are not trustworthy. The not so good ones leave their trash of all kinds behind in parks near schools. I don't believe that most shelters should be close to schools. It's just something to think about. If this sticks to it's original plan I don't think it would be so bad. Anything else would definitely not be acceptable in my book because of the proximity to a school.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"Yes, the one where you thought I was talking about marijuana, right. Good to see." -jonasThat article was about marijuana, so naturally I should have assumed you were "talking" about something else.Incidentally, there are studies pertaining to crime and the legalization of the harder drugs, but notajayhawk has informed me that these comments are for expressing opinions and nothing more, so I dare not violate the rules of engagement, and you'll just have to find those links yourself.I will give you a hint -- it is the illegal trade of those harder drugs that results in many deaths. Drug cartels and "drug deals gone bad" are huge contributors to death associated with hard illegal drugs.

0

jonas 5 years, 8 months ago

Yes, the one where you thought I was talking about marijuana, right. Good to see.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"Post the full link, Max, so they can read the rest of the discussion. I've always thought that one was quite entertaining." -jonas"Shoot Gnome, I was going to warn you that pointing out that Max relies on cut-paste and links" -jonas"So, in response to myself - and others - pointing out that max1 only posts links instead of original comments, max1 REposts the same link he posted earlier." -notajayhawkjonas, I "posted" the link "earlier". That link to the google-search only had two results, and the one where you flew into a "foaming tirade" was the earlier of the two news stories -- the one about marijuana. You know -- the discussion about marijuana, in which you requested that I provide you with some "links". Oh, never mind, here is the link:http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/jul...

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

max1 (Anonymous) says: "It was the same link that I posted earlier, you bonehead."Gee, sorry, let me immediately correct my previous post:So, in response to myself - and others - pointing out that max1 only posts links instead of original comments, max1 REposts the same link he posted earlier.You're right, D-bag, that made a big difference.

0

jonas 5 years, 8 months ago

Post the full link, Max, so they can read the rest of the discussion. I've always thought that one was quite entertaining.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"So, in response to myself - and others - pointing out that max1 only posts links instead of original comments, max1 posts - another link. Stellar as always, max1." -notajayhawkIt was the same link that I posted earlier, you bonehead. I was trying to teach you how to use a computer.Now, if the slobbering_gnome's concern about property values falling due to the shelter, then let's hear the president of the neighborhood association say that is the real reason, rather than beating around the bush and pretending there are other reasons.It appears as though notajayhawk, jonas, bearded_gnome as well as many others, think that my copying and pasting background information about the author of this piece was, as the slobbering_gnome so quaintly put it: ""and once again Maxy1 posts irrelevant links and quotes from other things on the web. when you force him to write for himself, it becomes painfully obvious that he does this because writing on his own, he displays an incredible shallowness, and ignorance." Similarly, when I posted this current Gallup poll ["Registered voters prefer Obama to McCain by 47% to 43%] on a news page titled "New Poll Shows Obama Losing Support"The slobbering_gnome regurgitated his tired old refrain : "Maxy1; you get him outa posting his cut-and-paste and you find he's an extremely dim bulb, 30Watt bulb in 100Watt bulb box! he posts these to hide his obvious inadequacies." -slobbering_gnome

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

So, in response to myself - and others - pointing out that max1 only posts links instead of original comments, max1 posts - another link. Stellar as always, max1.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"Nice try, no cookie, maxie" -notajayhawkI assume you are referring to this:Exhibit A:http://www.cartoonstore.net/cartoons_big/3808.jpgif you got a "forbidden" message -- hit reload, refresh or the return key. Do I have to explain the simplest things to you as well as to the slobbering_gnome?

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 8 months ago

Nice try, no cookie, maxie. The difference between gnome's posts and yours is that at least gnome's, whether you (or anyone else) agrees with them or not, are his own - you know, reader COMMENTS, not reader post-links-to-barely-(if-that)-related-stories-from-obscure-sources-that-nobody-gives-a-__-about.

0

Pamela Baughman 5 years, 8 months ago

I'm going to agree completely with Ms. Edmands, because this thread brings back to me the outpouring of fear I saw in some of my neighbors when a group home for handicapped adults was proposed for my neighborhood. Yes, MY neighborhood. I was appalled at the reaction of some of my "friends" whom I had always considered compassionate and whose children had been to my house where one of those scary retarded adults lived -- my son. I am pleased that the city commission permitted the group home in a "use permitted upon review" . The home has now been a fixture in our neighborhood for some years. I just don't know why we should expect the homeless and less fortunate to live in industrial-use neighborhoods, or anything less homey than what we expect for ourselves. I agree with 1029 -- these kids need good homes, good neighbors, good support systems, good schools -- and it takes a village. We all must be part of that village.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 8 months ago

Eva, I think what some of the responders are trying to say is, move to that neighborhood. Irrational behavior and request and demands are to be expected. Then you could silence your critics. They too need compassion and a great deal of understanding and recognition. Just move then re-submit an LTE stating that you moved.

0

1029 5 years, 8 months ago

These grouchy neighbors need to start "loving thy neighbor" and accept it. When we get enough people to vote that the murdering of babies illegal as it should be then all those mothers and the babies will need good homes too.If those kids don't have a good home, they will end up having no morals and no love and will commit crimes and then maybe go to jail. Then the liberals will want to raise taxes for prisons and probably also try to take away guns from people so that they can't defend themselves. If you don't want babies to be murdered then you have to recognize that these people will need somewhere to go. Lightenen up, neighbors!

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

' The best he can do to justify his characterization of me as a producer of "foaming tirades" and "hissy fits" is that I once said that he was "distasteful." haha. ' -jonasYes, jonas and bearded_gnome are cut from the same cloth -- they never react irrationally.archive this, jonas:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=jonas&as_epq=point+is+simply+to+scream+and+yellI said: ""Don't feel lonely - most people prefer to form irrational opinions based on nothing - reading facts and assimilating data requires thought."jonas' response:"If the point is simply to scream and yell, then continue with your standard level of abuse, so as I can realize that you're not worth the effort of actually attempting to rationally communicate with you." -jonasMy response to jonas' response: "Scream and yell? I'll apologize for all my screaming and yelling if you can show evidence that I have screamed and yelled even once in the course of this whole discussion."

0

Godot 5 years, 8 months ago

What is the problem with no housing for these homeless families? Are there not enough landlords willing to accept Section 8? What is this obsession with congregating the homeless in a shelter?

0

jonas 5 years, 8 months ago

Shoot Gnome, I was going to warn you that pointing out that Max relies on cut-paste and links with sparse filling of personally produced invective, for the most part, results immediately in a flood of obsessively archived posts that you made, and the lead-in to a comparison with Stewart Smalley, which looks like is being set up in the 7:47 posts. It slipped my mind. It's an impressive list for you. The best he can do to justify his characterization of me as a producer of "foaming tirades" and "hissy fits" is that I once said that he was "distasteful." haha.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

slobbering_gnome -- the trend-setterhttp://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/at-random/2008/jun/25/diary-of-a-mad-blogger/"I appreciate the opportunity to express myself on the ljworld blogs, for the politics national and local. . . there are often many who respond to threads with perspectives similar to mine. I think I have helped encourage other bloggers to speak up." -bearded_gnome

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/05/suspect_killing_commits_suicide"my first marriage, 1984-1993 was to a woman was quite violent . . . I have eight plus years of experience with a woman who shoved, hit, and threatened, and I mean often. so, don't give me this "alienated male" crap. . . I myself was a victim of domestic violence! in no way did I say women were better at the domestic violence. I said: women are better at hiding it!*" -bearded_gnomeExhibit A:http://www.cartoonstore.net/cartoons_big/3808.jpg

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

"and once again Maxy1 posts irrelevant links and quotes from other things on the web. when you force him to write for himself, it becomes painfully obvious that he does this because writing on his own, he displays an incredible shallowness, and ignorance." -slobbering_gnomeExcuse me, slobbering_gnome, I guess I was wrong -- Eva Edmands knows nothing about being homeless and the need for compassionate strangers. Sorry my comment was so completely off topic. I always find your comments to be scholarly and never repetitive.August 6, 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/aug..."Maxy1; you get him outa posting his cut-and-paste and you find he's an extremely dim bulb, 30Watt bulb in 100Watt bulb box! he posts these to hide his obvious inadequacies." -slobbering_gnomeJuly 18, 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/18/scientists_predict_hydrogen_car_boom"once you get maxy1 away from posting irrelevant, out-of-date, nonsense links/quotes, . . he is no more than a 30-watt bulb in a 100-watt bulb box!" -slobbering_gnomeJuly 13, 2008http://mobile.ljworld.com/news/2008/jul/13/when_opportunity_knocks/"maxy1, you get him away from his inane posting of out-of-context, out-of-date, irrelevant links/web material...when you get him outa that and he has to type for himself, you discover he is a very dim bulb indeed!" -slobbering_gnomeJun 12, 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun/12/too_little_too_late"once again, maxy1 posts an: irrelevant; out-of-context; or out-of-date quote. . . it became bonecrushingly obvious that he is just a very dim bulb, 20watt bulb in a box of 100watt bulgbs!" -slobbering_gnomeJune 9, 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/videos/2008/jun/09/18928/9 June 2008 at 11:32 p.m. "Max1, you perfidious little wiesel" -slobbering_gnome 10 June 2008 at 3:52 p.m. "maxy1, you are indeed deeply perfidious." -slobbering_gnome 10 June 2008 at 4:52 p.m. "Maxy1, you are pathetic, small minded, vacuous, and heartless . . . low and dirty, perfidious." -slobbering_gnomeJune 12, 2008http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun/12/too_little_too_late/13 June 2008 at 10:12 a.m. "once again, maxy1 posts . . . he was perfidious" -slobbering_gnome

0

bearded_gnome 5 years, 8 months ago

and once again Maxy1 posts irrelevant links and quotes from other things on the web. when you force him to write for himself, it becomes painfully obvious that he does this because writing on his own, he displays an incredible shallowness, and ignorance. one could argue that having been in a family that hid from oppressive government measures that tore away their private property including their home, she'd have more awareness of how government's actions hurt people's private property rights and personal security. now, I've turned the tables on ol' maxy-none with his own irrelevant citation.

0

max1 5 years, 8 months ago

http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/2003/jun/18/37857/Holocaust survivor Eva Edmands hid with her family during World War II in a rectory, where they were cared for by a French priest, L'abbe Claudius Longeray, shown in the photograph.

0

afraid_to_comment 5 years, 8 months ago

Wow, I don't see how someone can say something so hateful about others! The people in the Barker neighborhood are kind, compassionate residents that volunteer and help those less fortunate all the time. They are active in many organizations throughout the community. This sounds like slander to me. According to the program information all the other Family Promise homes are in an area zoned as industrial why isn't this one? If Ms Edmands wants this so bad let her do it in her neighborhood.

0

Father_Barker 5 years, 8 months ago

This writer pens her sanctimonious, self-satisfied LTE from a well-to-do enclave far from the proposed transient shelter. Her neighborhood would no sooner welcome a guesthouse for an ever-rotating cast of homeless people than would the Barker neighborhood.Unfortunately, if the city commission passes the ill-conceived code changes on Tuesday, every single residential neighborhood in Lawrence will be at risk for having homeless shelters, substance abuse centers, and other instruments of blight imposed upon them.Ms. Edmands, if you and your fellow shelter cheerleaders don't want to encounter resistance, then don't force your beloved shelter upon anybody else's residential neighborhood, areas that are by definition populated by residents, not transients. Look for a mixed-use zone instead. So far, the organization pushing the shelter has shown itself to be willing to lie repeatedly to residents and city officials in its quest to shove this shelter down our throats. After a highly contentious meeting with area residents on Thursday, the group said they would not force the shelter on the neighborhood if we didn't want it there. But after the vast majority of neighbors expressed disapproval of the proposed shelter, a Family Promise lawyer sent the City Commission a letter demanding immediate approval, since there have now been discussions with the neighborhood. See the letter here...(warning, it's a .PDF). http://www.lawrenceks.org/web_based_agendas/2008/08-12-08/08-12-08h/ta-04-03-08_communications.pdfIn the letter, the lawyer further states that the shelter would be for mothers and children, whereas at the meeting it was clear to all that the shelter would house entire families, to include fathers, uncles, etc. Anybody related to a child up to 15 would qualify, although this age limit seemed to be subject to change. I for one "deplore" your smug instance to foist problems on other people, and then trash us in the newspaper because we're trying to defend the security of own children. If you're so profound in your compassion, invite the homeless to your own neighborhood instead.

0

not_holroyd 5 years, 8 months ago

I'm telling you all that you are missing out on an opportunity in not considering 1200 block of Louisiana. A decline in property values here is absolutely no problem because the properties are all underappraised and undertaxed anyway. Maybe a homeless shelter would get values back in sync with the county books and allow for single famlies, or snarky old men, to move into the houses and fix them up... and get rid of some of those profiteering absentee landlords.Close by to construction jobs, the best bus access in town, and educational opportunities. Who could ask for anything more.

0

kansas778 5 years, 8 months ago

Whatever their fears may be, it is a reality that the value of their homes will take a hit because of this shelter. Who will compensate them for that?

0

bearded_gnome 5 years, 8 months ago

much hinges on how well this organization would maintain that house, and how well they control who's there. sadly, building the "open shelter" has actually attracted and maintained a certain population on our streets, and turned many of us against homeless people in general. the salvation army has standards and those who stay there are not the same population at all. hoping that if this goes through, it'll follow the Sally's model. and, ms. edmands, to those living in that area, this feels like others being compassionate with their neighborhood. kinda like liberals in the federal government being compassionate with other people's money.

0

i_tching 5 years, 8 months ago

The term itself, "christianity," is apparently obsolete, as now the Christ has nothing to do with it.

0

tangential_reasoners_anonymous 5 years, 8 months ago

It's all our backyard... though perhaps not so apparent to those with thegale-resistant privacy fences.

0

Tammy Copp-Barta 5 years, 8 months ago

Just curious Ms. Edmands ... is it in YOUR backyard?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.