Community shelter leaders moving forward with shelter plan despite setback at planning commission / LJWorld.com

Archive for Tuesday, November 17, 2009

The plans for a new homeless shelter have been delayed by the city, though they aren't dead. Action regarding the building will not resume until at least January.

By Chad Lawhorn

November 17, 2009

Leaders of the Lawrence Community Shelter said Tuesday they are sticking with plans to build a new homeless shelter along East 23rd Street, despite the project receiving an unexpected delay from planning commissioners.

One day after the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission delayed a recommendation on the project until at least January, the real estate agent for the shelter said he was optimistic the shelter would be able to extend a contract to purchase the former Don’s Steakhouse property, 2176 E. 23rd St.

“We believe we can keep the property under contract,” said Doug Brown, a board member of the shelter and a commercial real estate agent. “We’re talking to the property owners about that right now. We believe they’ll be responsive to that request, but we don’t have that finalized by any means.”

Planning commissioners deferred a rezoning and special-use permit request late Monday after expressing concern that the shelter’s proposed management plan didn’t do enough to address neighborhood concerns. Those concerns included how the shelter would control loitering in the area, the procedure for turning away banned individuals from the shelter, and transportation issues related to how shelter guests will come and go from the facility.

The Planning Commission’s deferral created a major complication because shelter leaders were scheduled to finalize the purchase of the property in early December. Brown said it is not feasible for shelter leaders to close on the property without knowing for certain whether the site will win the necessary land-use approvals.

With the recent deferral by the Planning Commission, the earliest the City Commission could give final approval to the project is now likely in February.

Finding another site for the shelter could be difficult, as new details that were released Tuesday showed that the shelter unsuccessfully made offers for two other pieces of property earlier this year.

According to information that Brown supplied to the city, the shelter in February submitted a letter of intent to purchase the Knights of Columbus building at 2206 E. 23rd St. Brown said that deal failed to materialize after the two sides could not agree on a price.

In June, the shelter submitted a letter of intent to purchase the former Meseraull Printing complex at 31st and Louisiana streets. That project failed to move forward after costs to extend city and water service to the site — which is just outside the city limits — became significant.

A site on county-owned property adjacent to the Douglas County Jail also was explored. County Administrator Craig Weinaug said he approached shelter leaders about placing the shelter adjacent to the jail, if the new shelter also could be made to serve as part of a re-entry program that county leaders would like to have for inmates after they’re released from jail. Weinaug said the two purposes ultimately were determined to be too different.

“The sheriff did a great job exploring it,” Weinaug said. “We all just came to the same conclusion that it wasn’t going to work.”

Brown said shelter leaders also had considered — although never technically made an offer — for vacant property that is just west of Independence Inc. headquarters at 2001 Haskell Avenue. Shelter leaders determined that strong opposition from neighbors would be likely at that site.

Neighbors near the Don’s Steakhouse site had asked planning commissioners on Monday to delay the rezoning and special-use permit applications. On Tuesday, a leader of the neighborhood opposition said he hoped the deferral would give everybody more time to consider a host of options — including whether there is government-owned property that could be donated for use by the shelter.

“I know there is huge pressure to move this out of downtown,” said Pat Slimmer, who owns an automotive repair shop next the proposed site. “I just want to make sure we’ve explored all avenues.”

Shelter director Loring Henderson said his group will continue to focus on the steakhouse site, but said he definitely plans to meet with neighbors several times before planning commissioners hear the issue again.

“I’m certainly feeling better about the situation today than I did last night,” Henderson said. “I think in the end, the support (from planning commissioners) is there, as long as we can show that we can work with the neighbors. And we definitely will work with the neighbors.”

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

17 November 2009
at 7:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cheeseburger (Anonymous) says…

“depsite”? Or 'despite'?
17 November 2009
at 7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nuby (Anonymous) says…

Typical- they continue to push forward before addressing concerns. That's what has gotten them into this situation in the first place.
17 November 2009
at 7:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Healthcare_Moocher (Anonymous) says…

Henderson is worried about his paycheck… and frankly, so are the rest of the ones invovled in this money pit.

They could build a 500 bed facility and it would be to small in a very short amount of time while, the taxpayers just keep footing the bill.
17 November 2009
at 8:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

“And thats when the fight started”……………….
17 November 2009
at 8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Too bad that cockfighting benefit function didn't work out.
17 November 2009
at 9:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oneeye_wilbur (Anonymous) says…

Why does the city commission continue to endorse this so called program Henderson is operating?

Why did Henderson choose Lawrence for his program?

Why is it that Lawrence is the chosen city?

If this “program” is so good, how come other cities around the area are not clamoring for the project?

Something is a missing in the story about the shelter.

I would challenge the Journal World to put in print all of the agencies already offering services to Lawrence and the county. The public would be aghast to see what is already offered.

Where is the largest population of Quakers around here? Perhaps, they would heartily endorse Henderson's program.

Again, why has the city of Lawrence continued to allow this operation to expand beyond local need?

Just recently I talked with someone at the Shelter and they are from Oklahoma? The party is not employed, is not planning to be employed but has found the system to be very beneficial.

Many of Henderson's clients should be offering classes to the locals on how to obtain the “benefits” in Lawrence.

Just recently I was told that a client of Bert Nash, on SSI, has an apartment, is now being told that perhaps he can get back Social Security in the amount of $100,000. Only in Lawrence would this be pursued.

K-10 is supposedly the “smart corridor”. So far, nothing is smart about this site. In fact, Don's Steakhouse should be leveled and a road built to connect to 19th st and intersect with O'Connell to the south of K-10.

But hey, it make me no difference, this is just another way to continue to ruin the east side of Lawrence which started years ago with the building of Edgewood.

Most people around have no knowledge of the mansions that were on the east side.

This is the Lawrence version of “field of dreams”.

I just bet the knights of Columbus are chomping at the bit to get their property under contract (if not already!).
17 November 2009
at 10:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oneeye_wilbur (Anonymous) says…

FYI

From Henderson's request for $50,000 from 2010 Alcohol Tax Funds:

LCS budget $578,00 in FY 2008, $692,815 in FY 2009, projected budget in 2010 of $803,000

Direct Expenditures: $305,515 Personnel
$35,200 RENT (does not include the sprinkler system the owner gets paid for by the city)

Indirect expenses, MANY, but take note: Bus passes worth $2.600 “guess where that comes from” uh huh, City Hall.

Guess if Mangino is on his way out, then the Big Mandingo hot dog is no longer. Another business venture lost in Lawrence.

17 November 2009
at 10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

doc1 (Anonymous) says…

You don't see any petition to send them to the west side of town. That building needs to burn down before they have a chance to open it up.
17 November 2009
at 10:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Family_of_3 (Anonymous) says…

I'm reposting a comment I made on the “Plan stalls to move homeless shelter” article.

I would like to see Lawrence address the homelessness challenge by providing two distinct shelter solutions: one plan designed to meet the needs of those who are not substance abusers, and one for people with substance abuse problems. The needs of these two groups are so different… I can't imagine how a single shelter could provide appropriate services to both groups at the same time. For the former group, I’m a big fan of providing a diverse range of options, and I think our local churches have done a nice job with the Family Promise program, from what I’ve read. For the latter group, it’s more complicated.

I have a family member attending a substance abuse program in Phoenix - it’s the best I’ve ever seen. It is a long-term facility (participants often stay a year or more), and the participants pay for the program themselves through jobs secured with help from the program. Of course it includes housing, assistance with transportation for those without a license, and assistance with all the other barriers that stand in the way of person who would like to improve their lives, but who have gotten themselves into such trouble that it's virtually impossible to do so without help. I think a program modeled this way is self-sustaining and works to solve the underlying problems that lead to homelessness for people who suffer from addiction. It isn’t a “shelter” per se - but it does provide “shelter” in conjunction with other critical services that a person needs in order to address the problems that lead to homelessness in the first place. I realize we will still have those people who do not want help…they just want a dry place to sleep where they can continue using. I don’t have an easy answer to this. I think those in 12 step programs will tell you that if you make it easy for people to drink/use by providing a clean, safe place to do so…then they’ll continue to use. So perhaps the only option is to turn them away and hope they hit bottom eventually. Some do, some don’t, some will, some won’t. It’s a sad fact of life.
17 November 2009
at 10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oneeye_wilbur (Anonymous) says…

doesnt the Director (salary unknown) live west? Perhaps, the Director should live on site!

After all, the various neighborhood activists worrying about porta potties believe party houses should have on site house director,

by the way, when will the porta potties arrive to line the alley of LCS, it sure isn't nice to pee in the alley, but when you gotta go, you gotta go.

This is about money folks, this is about social welfare jobs, this is about having a University with a School of Social Welfare and a Quaker at the helm at LCS.
17 November 2009
at 11:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nuby (Anonymous) says…

Loring- I'm taking time off from my JOB (that's right some people do work for a living) to research this issue so you better have your ducks in a row.
18 November 2009
at 6:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

It's the BOD making this decision not Loring Henderson.

It is the BOD that sets the pathway. It is Hendersons job to move that pathway forward.

Talk to Doug Brown and other BOD members most of which are probably from the “west side” ot not anywhere near their backyards.
18 November 2009
at 7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

januarygirl (Anonymous) says…

there is talk of closing more schools in lawrence due
to lack of funding and budget cuts.!!!!!! and the tax
payers should just sit back and allow such a huge
budget for the proposed shelter. mr. loring where is the common sense in all of this. there are plenty of programs
and help already available for those in need. . this will not go through, not because
the people in lawrence don't care about the needs of
others, but because the needs of all the people need to
be addressed.
18 November 2009
at 7:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eastsidepride (Anonymous) says…

Right on Nuby!!! That is exactly what we need. People who want to know more and are willing to act on it… You can start at no4relocation.wordpress.com. Citizens against the relocation of the LCS!!!! one eye wilbur your figures are right on to. The amount of money our city is pouring into this project is ridiculous! 3 million was cut from our schools budgets this year alone, yet we will give the LCS 10,000 for bus passes and clothing. You nor I could ride that bus for free!!! I dont work because I love to work! I work because I have no choice and have had a job since I was 13!!! Charity begins at home!!!! We need to stand up to this problem and protect our beautiful Eastside before it ends up like our beautiful downtown!!!
18 November 2009
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Henderson said. “I think in the end, the support (from planning commissioners) is there, as long as we can show that we can work with the neighbors. And we definitely will work with the neighbors.”
Lies lies lies. He is getting butted out of the neiborhood he is in because he doesn't work with the neighbors.
Lies Lies Lies.

18 November 2009
at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…

What does Quakerism have to do with it? This thread is pathetic and sad.
18 November 2009
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

januarygirl (Anonymous) says…

this fight is not just about the concerns of the eastside
neighborhoods. what part of this plan not being a
good one do you not understand. this proposed building
should not put everyone under the same umbrella. there
are financial exspectations, all the ongoing tax burden.
the neighbors of east lawrence have no trust in what you are planning.
18 November 2009
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

eastsidepride (Anonymous) says…

January Girl You are right! This should should be a concern for all Lawrence residents!!! If this was a facility to house only families and women I would not be fighting anything. This burden of footing the bill is passed to all of Lawrence. AND No East Lawrence does not have any trust in this plan!!! There are way to many unanswered questiions and liabilities that will fall to the neighbors closest to this site!!! They all keep saying there are no residents close to the proposed site… I can walk there in about 6 minutes… Thats to close for comfort!
18 November 2009
at 9:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oneeye_wilbur (Anonymous) says…

lucy, do your homework. call a post pathetic? That is what is wrong with Lawrence.

This LCS from beginning until now has been another program in Lawrence not needed. Again, I challenge the J/W to print the names of every social service agency, churches, KU programs, United Way affilitations, governmental agencies that assist people.

As long as Lawrence has a school of social welfare, the programs and directorships will continue.

LINK needs to go and LCS .

The Salvation Army is the only worthwhile program and they have had their name tarnished because of their attempt to house people at their present site. They turned that site into a flop house for a bunch of adult males who found how to work the system.

I enjoyed I Love Lucy, it was enjoyable.

LCS should not only NOT be on 23rd, it does not need to exist in Lawrence. If it is so good, it would be in Ottawa, Tonganoxie, McClouth, Topeka, Kansas City, Wellsville, every town around would clamor for it.

Why does the City Commission continue to support Loring Henderson?

The LCS Board is made up of whom? How many jobs has one of their members who is tied to the employment agency service, how many has she found and the “clients” continue to be employed?

What about the program with Habitat and Restore using the LCS “clients” for labor? Where does that benefit the “clients”, or maybe it doesn't.

As I have said before, this is about titles, money, more money.

How come Loring Henderson in his Alcohol Tax request for money, did not fully break down the payroll, and the names of employees and salaries.

January girl, forget neighbors on the east side and the ongoing tax burden expenses. This is ongoing for this whole town. This is the new Economic Development plan for a few. i. Building is for sale, realtor makes money, contractor makes money, tenants move in pay no money=no revenue new building is removed from tax , rolls=no money.

This is being shoved into this community and will continue to be as long as there is a school of social welfare and as long as the multitude of existing agencies are allowed to continue to operate as they all feed off each other. check out the Alcohol Tax money request and see the connections.

J/W. a challenge to you as a provider of information:

PRINT the names of each and every agency, church, Univ affilitations, USD 497 affiliations, governmental agencies,etc that are in Lawrence to assist people in need.

The best one is the cooked to order breakfast on Friday.
And Lawrence doesn't even have a Senior Center of worth. All this town has for a senior center is an old jail.
And this is a place to retire to? hahaha,,that's a good one. Anyone with good sense would go to Palm Springs or Scottsdale, AZ (even it has section 8 housing!)

NO LCS in Lawrence .

In closing , about the Quakers. Check out Henderson's religious affiliation. Religious backgrounds often play a role in determining one's mission in life. Sadly.
18 November 2009
at 9:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

50YearResident (Anonymous) says…

These facts should be public information:
What is Loring's salary?
How many others are on the payroll?
What is their salary?
This project is the “Goose that laid the Golden Egg” for Henderson and staff.
Nuby, Check the current residents background information to see how many came here from out of State for the “Benefits”, and how many have criminal histories.
18 November 2009
at 10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

januarygirl (Anonymous) says…

one-eye wilbur, i totally agree with you in every way. keep that info flowing, everyone in lawrence needs
to be informed. there are so many conflict of interest
with this project. i'm offended by the intent to win people over by telling us that they want to satisfy east lawrence
residents when this concerns all of lawrence and also
the people that would use the facility. i would not want
to have to be in a shelter that is planned such as this one.
18 November 2009
at 11:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pat222 (Anonymous) says…

Here’s the deal LCS director Loring Henderson is hard working and very compassionate, he has devoted his life to helping others he does not make squat. I respect anybody that works hard and believes in what they do. Please let’s not attack Loring personally.

I think that the planning commission spoke clear and loudly. Wherever the shelter relocates change has to happen. There has to be open real communication between LCS and their neighbors. LCS has an uphill battle. LSC announced this location September 3rd and then waited till November 12th 101 days later 4 days before the public hearing to meet with neighbors, trust was lost. Planning department rules and deadlines need to be followed. The process needs to be out in the open and transparent. We need open constructive dialog with LCS and the city.

The rights of hard working citizens and business owners as well as people down on their luck need to be respected.
You can not force a shelter upon an area it has to be accepted by the neighbors to truly make it work.

Right now there are more questions then answers, these questions need to be answered before LCS moves.
I think we all want what is best for Lawrence.
Thank You
Pat Slimmer
18 November 2009
at 11:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

pat222 (Anonymous) says…

Below is a summery of issues from the November 16th planning Commission meeting, this is pasted directly from a planning department email.
If you have any questions or constructive suggestions about these issues I urge you to email the city’s planning department.

Issues I have listed in my notes from last night:

o Condition rezoning so not published unless SUP is approved
o Address trespassing issues on nearby property in Management Plan
o Bus stop (changes to bus route to provide service to shelter)
o Consideration of only ‘dry’ shelter
o Consideration of Douglas County residency requirement
o Plan for foot traffic – can we identify expected/most frequent routes to various services? Foot traffic study
o Transportation Plan – how will guests be transported to various services?
o Should a committee be formed to work through Good Neighbor Agreement?
o 15 year time frame may be too long/ or maybe a time frame is not required at all with revocation process in place
o More information on consideration of other locations – why they don’t work? Why this is the best location?
o Safety on busy street
o Address off-site panhandling (on 23rd Street esp, impression as one enters Lawrence)
o Management Plan should address off-site expectations
o Need to spend more time with neighbors to address issues/comfort with ability to handle off-site behaviors
o Success depends on LCS response to issues
o SUP should be linked to bus service to front door
o Address setbacks/bufferyard changes requested
o Need to work with neighbors in larger area, beyond immediate property owners (such as residents of mobile home park, tenants in 10 Marketplace)
o Management Plan needs to be more outcome based – more positive language
o Plan needs to address what happens if shelter is full – what is done with overflow, or how do you turn people away/ transport somewhere else?
o Management Plan needs to be tailored to this location and this facility/operation
o More clarity on how guests will spend the day – what all will they be doing (service hours, counseling, appts)
o How will outdoor area be used? Address loitering
o What are impacts/relationship with existing food programs such as Jubilee Café and LINK

Thank You
Pat Slimmer

19 November 2009
at 9:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nuby (Anonymous) says…

Is the LCS Management Plan anywhere on the internet? I can't find it.
19 November 2009
at 12:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

slimmer (Anonymous) says…

You can find the LCS Management Plan on the city's web site under Nov 16t Planning Commission Agendas
http://www.lawrenceks.org/planning/do…
Much work is needed,if LCS had been forced to address these issues previously there would less problems downtown.