You must log in or register to comment.

YoooJoee t1_jb7hhnq wrote

I’m happy for the success this shelter had in homeless placement but I know it’s largely a lie. I don’t like the misleading bias in the article. I own a home one street away from it. Literally a 3 minute walk.

  1. The city and council woman approved the site before public insight from the neighborhood and businesses. They did set up a public meeting afterwards but basically said they already approved it and none of our opinions will be heard (I was in the meeting).
  2. Patrols weren’t increase to prevent crime. It’s because property crime skyrocketed when the shelter opened. Myself and neighboring cars got broken into several times. They worded it; justifying the increase of incidents because they were proactive with higher patrol. It’s the other way around. They promised private security and NEVER hired it until after one volunteer at assaulted.
  3. The article states newton square got special treatment for extra street cleanings. But that’s because drug needles and trash was being discarded on the public sidewalk/streets.

They literally started to take to neighborhood safety measures after someone died there so if that’s success, cheers to them


Spacemage t1_jb87oik wrote

Going off this comment, and tied to the comment I posted outside of this, one of the most important things for these shelters (which need to be permanent is) is having social workers on sight.

If people are causing problems, doing drugs (depending on the community structure), and not following rules, they get removed from the housing for someone else to have an opportunity.

Not every homeless person is going to be a good person. The same way not every middle class, tax paying, hard working citizen is going to be a good person. People are excellent at self preservation and understanding consequences, so if they know they'll lose their shelter and security, it's easier to dissuade people from being shit bags when they know they have expectations.

It's a shame the city is half assing this. We gave them the blue print in how to make this work, which research and evidence.


YoooJoee t1_jb89jgc wrote

I 100% agree. I know my comment might make it sounds like I’m against these kind of ideas, but I’m actually all for it. It just has to be right or it’ll just cause more problems later on.


Spacemage t1_jb9dhns wrote

Certainly, it must be done right or it can be a disaster. I didn't take your comment as being against it, honestly. I also know that given the opportunity for the situation to be done correctly, people end up being for it. It's a weird paradox.


[deleted] t1_jbljn8h wrote

Unfortunately that's how a lot of shelters go. Everything you just said, it all also happened at Hotel Grace, which this shelter replaced.

And in the grand scheme, if this shelter didn't open, can you imagine 60 more people wandering out streets every night, in more desperate shape cuz they have neither this shelter nor Hotel Grace? In a way, it's sadly the lesser of two evils.

Wish I had some answers on how these sorts of problems can be addressed. The city definitely could have done better, like I don't think the blame should go to the employees or Open Sky cuz they tried their damnedest.

It's the City Councilors who try to latch their names onto this stuff and then bail, or cops who won't move a finger to patrol under almost any circumstances.


Spacemage t1_jb874fx wrote

I was working with a group that was going to create a tiny home community for the chronically homeless. We pursued this because all over the country there is undeniable evidence that these communities improve the problem with homeless people for multiple reasons.

The city was with us. We had people who were willing to make the houses. We had an area.

Right before we got to pull the trigger the city pulled out. It was a fucking shame, and very disheartening knowing that until someone with political power in city has a kid who is homeless, even evidence and support isn't enough to get the homeless problem fixed.


k-squeez t1_jb89umv wrote

I remember reading about this plan. Who was responsible for pulling out? Curious how that went down.


Spacemage t1_jb9ddce wrote

I don't specifically recall who it was. I would have to dig through my notes.


thisoneiaskquestions t1_jba5g63 wrote

Tbh, I think you should, and if it is the result of a single person, or few people, then they should be exposed and questioned why they are choosing to leave so many others literally out in the cold. People are dying. That's definitely worth digging through your notes.


Flat_Owl2401 t1_jb9znxd wrote

It's all mouth work. They don't want to deal with people who are unhoused. They want to give unhoused people a 1 way to ticket to a warmer state . Housing 1st!!!!!. Housing 1st!!!! Housing 1st!!! A roof over a person's head and clean water should be a human right. Meanwhile landlords are selling their properties to LLC management companies, making it impossible for people to find housing. Our elected officials are f.o.s.


[deleted] t1_jbliv4q wrote

I remember that. If I recall, Seven Hills was spearheading that, and some other nonprofits including Open Sky (which runs this shelter) were going to help out. Then poof, suddenly news just stopped on it.

Wish I knew what happened. Somebody definitely pulled the plug or bailed out last minute and screwed a lot of folks over.


Sithlordbelichick t1_jb82l1y wrote

I’m sure it wasn’t any worse than smocs shelter on queen


FIFAFanboy2023 t1_jbjfkpr wrote

I know some people who have used both shelters and they said the Blessed Sacrament one is far better.