Skip to comments.New Boise homeless shelter irks business owners who are considering moving
Posted on 09/12/2007 9:07:23 AM PDT by Lorianne
A third homeless shelter near River Street has some business owners in the area upset and planning to move. Last week, a diverse group of religious leaders gathered outside an older commercial building just off Interstate 184, the Connector, to make an announcement they'd held back for months: Boise's Interfaith Sanctuary had secured funding and bought a building to shelter homeless men, women and families.
Interfaith Sanctuary provides an alternative to traditional men's and women's shelters, which some people will not use because of religious affiliations.
Sanctuary allows families to stay together and will take intoxicated people.
For two years, Sanctuary moved from church to church each week through the winter. Last winter, it operated in temporary quarters in the basement of Downtown Boise's old Carnegie Library.
In January, Sanctuary closed for the season with no certain home for this winter.
Now Interfaith Sanctuary Housing has purchased a 10,200-square-foot building at 1620 River St. for its permanent home, using $800,000 in loans from the Idaho Housing Finance Association and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise.
The shelter will open Nov. 1 and operate 365 days a year, offering shelter and rehabilitation services for about 100 homeless people at a time.
The owner of a nearby auto shop says the shelter will create too many problems, and he's selling his building. A medical office manager says that office intends to move.
(Excerpt) Read more at idahostatesman.com ...
Why not disperse 'temporary' housing throughout the area rather than create large groups of homeless living one confined area?
The've tried the large-scale homeless shelters in my county and they always bring problems. Homeless people are a problem, period. By concentrating them you only concentrate their problems and create a concentrated problem for the community.
Why were there relatively few homeless / vagrants / rootless people in 1960, and millions today, by some estimates?
Do people have a constitutional right to sleep outside, and relieve themselves wherever they are?
Do people have a constitutional right to hang out in the streets day and night, with have no visible means of support?
If “decent” or “normal” people feel threatened by concentrations of “homeless”, do we have a right to feel that way or is it our problem if we object to concentrations of such people in certain areas?
The experience with the Interfaith Council homeless shelter in Chapel Hill has been that it gives a whole bunch of homeless people a base of operations for panhandling, theft, and selling drugs right next to the busiest centre in the city. It got so bad that even liberal Chapel Hill, NC had to pass ordinances outlawing panhandling after dark and/or within 50 feet of an ATM. The McDonalds on Franklin St. even has a sign up inside the store politely requesting that customers refrain from giving money to panhandlers as it may encourage them to “approach those who may not wish to give”. It’s a mess. The whole concept of “homeless shelters” are a worthless waste of resources. Much better to tell the bums that they either get a job and a place to stay and start using their resources responsibly, or they can spend time in gaol for vagrancy (of course, some of them probably WANT that - warm, room over your head, and FREE).
“Interfaith Sanctuary provides an alternative to traditional men’s and women’s shelters, which some people will not use because of religious affiliations.”
Does this mean that Interfaith doesn’t represent any religious perspective for these people to hold on to?
It sounds like a liberal cluster.
I plan to hang out at a couple of “Winter Adult Day-Care Centers” (ski areas) this winter with no visible means of support.
The local paper had four columns of help wanted jobs . . . in a college town of 25,000 people, half of them students! While I understand that much of what was advertised is seasonal work with potato harvest approaching, the point is that there are jobs in Idaho.
My reading of the "problem" in this article is that this newest "homeless" shelter is for the "professional homeless"-- those who don't want jobs and are unwilling to give up their booze in return for a warm place to sleep at night . . . even though they can go out and get plastered again the very next morning.
Maybe I'm cruel and not a compassionate conservative, but it seems to me that the money would be better spent by buying the hard-core professional homeless a one-way ticket to San Francisco.
The owner of a nearby auto shop says the shelter will create too many problems, and he's selling his building.
“the point is that there are jobs in Idaho.”
Suitable for college students. Not jobs that allow one to support a family.
“If you locate the homeless shelter downtown so it will be close to potential jobs for its residents,”
In Boise, the jobs are likely to be further away from down town.
“It sounds like a liberal cluster.”
If the Boise diocese is supporting it, it is a liberal cluster.
There weren't. But back then it was the policy to institutionalize such people. That policy has been dropped. It's worked for some, but not for others.
The insane were institutionalized during that era. They make up the bulk of the hard core homeless.
A number of them have mental problems. They either don't have the resources to get help, or the very nature of their mental problem keeps them from voluntarily getting help.
Naturally for the nexus of the welfare industry, do gooders, unions, government contractors they had to go.
Although homeless bums are a problem for small business, these people have little clout. Homeless(ness) is a nice, small industry for the local/state/federal welfare workers and tax supported government employees.
Always follow the money.
Sounds like an opportunity to me - open a package store next to the homeless shelter.
The mental health advocates succeeded in having most institutions closed. To some degree they were right to do so since many of those places were hell-holes. Trouble was they didn’t have a plan for alternative housing once the institutions were closed. Some of the mentally challenged, such as my one relative (she is profoundly learning disabled and can’t function on her own) were lucky to get into group homes, but most wound up on the street (at least that’s what happened where I live).
That's me! I need a free single room with a free wireless internet connection on a seasonal basis.
An interesting comment. I assume that you mean to imply that the jobs will not allow one to support a family because they do not pay well enough. Several possible replies come immediately to mind:
1. How do you know that there are no jobs that pay enough to support a family?
2. Most "homeless" people are not trying to support families.
3. Any job is better than no job at all.
4. Two low-end jobs might earn one enough to support a family.
5. A low-end job can quickly lead to better jobs.
Have I missed anything?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.