Advertisement

Archive for Monday, August 31, 2009

Homelessness topic of forum tonight

August 31, 2009

Advertisement

A forum examining mental illness and its links to homelessness is scheduled for tonight.

The Coalition on Homeless Concerns will host the forum at 7 p.m. today at the Lawrence Public Library, 707 Vt.

The event will include presentations from Susan Crain Lewis, CEO of the Mental Health Association of the Heartland, and Simon Messmer, director of Housing to Homes.

The forum is the second of four on the subject. The third forum is scheduled for Sept. 28. The final forum is set for Nov. 30.

Comments

smitty 4 years, 7 months ago

ksarmychick says....“can't” find a job....

reread....take note....lost the job.....BTW already employed...I'll ignore the rant portion on get a job since it is your emotionally charged personal pov without balance and skip to.....

Ksarmychick says....They could easily afford a two bedroom apartment(I've seen them as low as $425 a month) and utilities and food, and easily have money left over.........perhaps but now there are deposits, first and last months rent, utility deposits, extra expenses just to do the red tape and all the things you don't think of, whatever other expenses come with eviction.... as they save for the deposits.... which this young family is doing .........so any money left over will used up for quite some time even without unexpected life events

Ksarmychick says....Instead of giving free handouts the government should give out job applications and a swift kick in the a**!.....if you are a ks army chick the assumption is you are in the army and female from or in ks and I will assume, young/inexperienced/learning thru OJT/goal of paid school/benefits upon return to civilian life ....with that as the assumption .......as a member of the army, you are are on the tax dole, you are trained on the tax dollar, you are fed on the tax dollar, you get medical from tax dollars, you are getting your free handouts from the government in the military....your choice....no problem...that's OJT in the military...benefits are all part of the deal......there's a price to pay whichever choice is made and tax dollars are involved either way....then there is that element of undesirables at the shelter that are ex-military war vets with ptss, mental illness, and addictions that are part of the reason parents with children shouldn't be forced to occupy the shelter to pad the statistics for mo' money.........take a closer look at your comments with your peers in mind......get a job rant still stand?

It isn't good policy or use of time and resources to displace parents and their toddler to a homeless shelter before the damn paper work can be processed.

0

cletus26 4 years, 7 months ago

why don't y'all have these forum on the weekend so that us working folks can attend? i do want to know what is being discussed, asked, and said.

0

smitty 4 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

ksarmychick 4 years, 7 months ago

With all of the help wanted signs all over town, I really find it hard to believe that people "can't" find a job. Especially when there is a family with 2 parents and a child, and another adult in the home. There are many places in town that have employees on the clock 24 hours a day, so both parent's could find a job(different shifts) and alternate who watches the child. I am so sick of peoples excuess of why they can't or won't find a job, and why everyone else should pay up to take care of them. So what if McDonald's only pays $8+ an hour(with free meals), if you have 2 parents working full time jobs they would bring home almost $2000 a month after taxes. They could easily afford a two bedroom apartment(i've seen them as low as $425 a month) and utilities and food, and easliy have money left over. There are no excuses just people unwilling to do what they need to do for thier family. Instead of giving free handouts the government should give out job applications and a swift kick in the a**!.

0

smitty 4 years, 7 months ago

"exploitation” for sure if there was no way that the family group would use that shelter unless forced to do so in order to qualify especially in light that the homeless were officially counted in surveys as homeless even though they were in a temporary situation. The rules have been changed? They changed them to force the use of the shelter. Do you suppose that the statistics will now allow for the city or feds to fund the shelter for their new building with the justification based on the families forced to live at the shelter unnecessarily? All the while, putting their toddler and themselves in contact with the historical type of client that has been the main stay of the drunken druggie shelter.

A little common sense could go a long way here to help solve/improve the overload at the shelter, too.

Cry it both ways..we are not able to handle all the demand...and.... the rules say you must move into this shelter even if you have a safe but over crowded temporary sofa and floor to sleep on at grandmas cause that's the rule. The shelter sure gets a lot of free publicity for talking out both sides of their ....mouth.

Can't we just use some common sense and still meet the needs of the bureaucracy?

0

Amy Heeter 4 years, 7 months ago

CLO does recycling.

I doubt the CDIC would even try to implement such a program since most of the regulars are too busy drinking to work.

0

Paul R Getto 4 years, 7 months ago

"Homelessness is not a character defect." ====Good point, Geekin. The great Essene Teacher was, for the most part, homeless and worked most with the disposessed and the outcasts. Most people carrying a large debt load are 2-3 paychecks from being homeless in a worst-case scenario. Those who have family to help are in a better situation than the others. I do share the frustration some express about those on assistance, when they fake illnesses or disabilities, refuse to work and game the system for all it's worth. It would be nice if there were an easy and inexpensive way to separate the 'sheep from the goats.'

0

geekin_topekan 4 years, 7 months ago

I wouldn't consider following a certain set of outdated rules as "exploitation" smit but, they do seem unreasonable at times. Assuming that your neighbors are sitting on their duffs waiting for their hand out, the wait would seem eternity.

However, as long as your neighbors are continuing to move forward and take daily steps that are necessary to escape their situation, they may find alternative means of recovery in the meantime. They may find that they require neither a voucher nor gram. They would be a smashing story of success and inspiration. Why not exploit those qualities instead of ranting about things that they can not do anything about.

Homelessness is not a character defect. Placing recovery into finite hands is.

0

donald_gilchrist 4 years, 7 months ago

Can we finally get something done about the fact that this craphole of a town has no curbside recycling program? How about getting all the homeless that flock to Larry to pick up the good taxpaying townspeople's recycling? For a "progressive" town, it's really freakin sad that the only place that you can get rid of your recyclables is at Walmart, almost out of the southern city limits. That is Pathetic! I say bring on the hordes of homeless, build them a massive shelter, and let them come get my recycling.

0

autie 4 years, 7 months ago

Too bad there is not a good way to separate the truly needy that want to live in a home but circumstances screwed them from the hobos and bums that want to be homeless.

0

Amy Heeter 4 years, 7 months ago

I agree it is a bad situation. I know a few parents who have had to move the adult kids in due to economics. For a person on subsidized housing a parent is forced to choose between a roof over their own head or their children. In real life adult kids often need to move back in with their parents or visit long term. people on housing programs do not have that option without being under finacial hardship.

0

smitty 4 years, 7 months ago

If you are requesting assistance there are so many forms and verifications on income, resources, employment, etc that verifiable facts/data will verify the truth of the situation.

Why force a family onto the streets on into the drunken druggie shelter because Grandma will go any extent to protect her young ones, even to her own detriment. In the past the JW has covered the stats on homeless to include those who are hidden by the fact that they are in a temporary if not satisfactory living situation. No difference in this one except that now the homeless are forced into the undesirable situation of the homeless shelter in order to get housing.

0

Amy Heeter 4 years, 7 months ago

The way I understand it the LDCHA cannot issue a housing voucher to any person who is already living in a subsidized unit. This puts families in a bad situation. Very few grandparents are going to be willing to put their children and grandchildren out in the streets to wait on a two year list for a voucher. The only other option for families in this situation is to get a new voucher for more bedrooms. The cost of a family moving is usually a key problem in this type of situation plus those being added to the lease put the primary lease holder in a catch 22 situation if the extended family members move prior to lease renewal. For example if grandma has a one bedrom unit and the family ups the vocher then when the kids move out grandma is in a three bedroom unit and only eligaile for a one bed unit. The max fair market rent for a one bed unit is alot less than the fair market for a three bed unit. So grandma either stays and pays fair market plus the difference or grandma moves again.

0

ku_tailg8 4 years, 7 months ago

I agree with your position for the most part. I just wonder if changing the rules would lead to more problems. Where do you draw the line between being homeless and just living at home with mom and dad. I know people would take advantage of the rule change. Obviously those folks living in the shelters don't have relatives willing to take them in and are in far more need of assistance.

0

smitty 4 years, 7 months ago

The homeless with children are being exploited to up the statistics.

A neighbor has temporarily housed an adult child, mate and grandchild after they lost their job and their apartment. Because they have moved into my neighbor's apartment complete with the LDCHA knowledge,(yes they follow the rules) the adult children are not considered eligible for homeless housing consideration. Officially they are housed. Never mind that there is three adults and one toddler sharing what was intended for one of maybe two people and they are actively searching for a way out of their circumstances.

The young family is being required to move into the drunken druggie shelter before they can be considered for emergency housing for the homeless OR even before they can be entered on the waiting list, I believe.

There does not appear to be any stipulations that will allow for them to continue to live with the Grammy until housing becomes available through the homeless emergency program.

BTW, LDCHA also will not keep them on a list for housing eligibility since they are at grandmas legally but over crowded.

All involved are upset but are conforming to the forced occupancy of the drunken druggie in order to apply and get assistance.

Some changes need to happen. Are the statistics more important than effectively arranging adequate and affordable housing for this young displaced family while allowing them a safer and more supportive environment while they wait it out. It's not like living with Grandma in an over crowded apartment is a party but it sure beats exposure to the risks that are part of the shelter occupancy.

This is the why the stats have jumped up recently on homeless with children to advance the need of the drunken druggie shelter? Forced occupancy by families??

BS, pure and simple BS.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.