Compassion And The Homeless
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
Now, having conceded that Warsaw needs a homeless shelter, the obvious questions are:
Who will operate it?
And:
Where will it be?
Well, we have apparent answers to both of those questions.[[In-content Ad]]Eric Lane and Fellowship Missions - with the financial help of the local ministerial association - is willing to operate the shelter.
Lane and his group also have the opportunity to purchase the former Brennan's Drug Store on Market Street in downtown Warsaw. The plan is to turn it into a homeless shelter.
Seems fine.
But the whole thing turned goofy earlier this week.
This not to say that this is a bad idea or that there are bad people involved. Quite the contrary.
Who in their right mind would argue that a community like Warsaw shouldn't lend a helping hand to those who find themselves - for whatever reason - without a warm place to sleep at night?
And while I have never met Lane or members of his Fellowship Missions, I don't feel as if I am going out on a limb when I say that they are well intentioned.
But it still got goofy.
Before last week's city council meeting, a bunch of downtown merchants and other interested citizens got wind of the homeless shelter proposal.
They showed up at the city council meeting. Lane was asked to be on the agenda to make a presentation about the shelter. Even though 80-some interested people were there to check things out, Mayor Ernie Wigging said that this was not an appropriate forum for the residents to ask questions.
Hmm.
I told the mayor I thought that was a mistake. I mean, you had everybody in the room, why not hash things out?
Be that as it may, the mayor suggested that Warsaw Community Development Corp. Coordinator Cindy Dobbins host a meeting for Lane and his people and anyone else interested to talk things over.
So she did.
She set the meeting for Wednesday at 7 p.m. We put a little blurb in the newspaper and figured everything was cool.
But then somebody - and we're not sure who, but Lane says it wasn't him - called some TV stations and told them about the meeting.
Now, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me whoever called may not have accurately represented the purpose of the meeting. Probably said something like, "There's a bunch of local merchants trying to stop a homeless shelter" or something even more sensational.
So, of course, the TV station shows up and starts asking downtown merchants why they're opposed to the shelter. The TV station also plans to have its cameras rolling during the meeting.
Dobbins, figuring that the if there are TV cameras in the room, nobody is going to want to question the shelter being established down town, so she made the meeting a "no media" event.
Then, a short time later, she decided to just cancel the meeting.
Of course, the TV station took credit - or would that be blame? - for the meeting being canceled. The lead-in to the TV report stated "some downtown business are not exactly rolling out the welcome mat" for the shelter.
And as for why the meeting was canceled, "our cameras were the reason why," the TV report said.
All this would have been pretty easy to avoid. Just have the meeting, cameras, reporters and all and let the chips fall. Or not have a meeting at all and just have people e-mail their questions.
Too late for that.
See, I don't really have an issue with there being a homeless shelter downtown, but I do have issues with things being mishandled to the point that it makes the town look backward and dopey.
First of all, this Lane guy should have, first and foremost, made contact with everybody he could downtown, let them know of his intentions and allay all of their concerns before he even entertained the idea of buying the Brennan's building.
This only makes things easier for Lane in the long run, because if everybody's on board, it is pretty unlikely that anyone would remonstrate against the project. Even though it fits the zoning, it still has to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A remonstrance could upend that process.
Before I closed on the property, I'd make darn sure everybody was on board with my plans.
Also, it seems to me there are some pretty significant state regulatory hurdles that must be overcome with regard to any renovations that need to be done to the building.
Again, I'd be sure all those things were in order before I did anything.
Then there's the larger issue of whether a homeless shelter is appropriate downtown. Well, pretty much every homeless shelter I've ever seen has been in a downtown, so I guess the answer is yes.
You just don't see rural homeless shelters.
Now, whether this particular location is the best use could be debated, but these people are homeless. That doesn't automatically mean they're criminals, drug abusers or trouble makers. I'm not sure what the objection would be. I mean, the Times-Union building is right across the street and the thought of having the shelter there doesn't bother me.
I'm sure they're going to have rules. It's not like they're going to let people loiter on the sidewalk out front or sleep on benches under newspapers.
My guess is, on any given day, there will probably be more staff members than homeless people in the building and it won't look much different than it does now.
I believe everybody will get on the same page and figure this thing out.
In the end, I have faith in the compassionate nature of our community. If Lane gets all his ducks in a row and we we truly need a homeless shelter, we'll have one.
Latest News
E-Editions
Now, having conceded that Warsaw needs a homeless shelter, the obvious questions are:
Who will operate it?
And:
Where will it be?
Well, we have apparent answers to both of those questions.[[In-content Ad]]Eric Lane and Fellowship Missions - with the financial help of the local ministerial association - is willing to operate the shelter.
Lane and his group also have the opportunity to purchase the former Brennan's Drug Store on Market Street in downtown Warsaw. The plan is to turn it into a homeless shelter.
Seems fine.
But the whole thing turned goofy earlier this week.
This not to say that this is a bad idea or that there are bad people involved. Quite the contrary.
Who in their right mind would argue that a community like Warsaw shouldn't lend a helping hand to those who find themselves - for whatever reason - without a warm place to sleep at night?
And while I have never met Lane or members of his Fellowship Missions, I don't feel as if I am going out on a limb when I say that they are well intentioned.
But it still got goofy.
Before last week's city council meeting, a bunch of downtown merchants and other interested citizens got wind of the homeless shelter proposal.
They showed up at the city council meeting. Lane was asked to be on the agenda to make a presentation about the shelter. Even though 80-some interested people were there to check things out, Mayor Ernie Wigging said that this was not an appropriate forum for the residents to ask questions.
Hmm.
I told the mayor I thought that was a mistake. I mean, you had everybody in the room, why not hash things out?
Be that as it may, the mayor suggested that Warsaw Community Development Corp. Coordinator Cindy Dobbins host a meeting for Lane and his people and anyone else interested to talk things over.
So she did.
She set the meeting for Wednesday at 7 p.m. We put a little blurb in the newspaper and figured everything was cool.
But then somebody - and we're not sure who, but Lane says it wasn't him - called some TV stations and told them about the meeting.
Now, I don't know for sure, but it seems to me whoever called may not have accurately represented the purpose of the meeting. Probably said something like, "There's a bunch of local merchants trying to stop a homeless shelter" or something even more sensational.
So, of course, the TV station shows up and starts asking downtown merchants why they're opposed to the shelter. The TV station also plans to have its cameras rolling during the meeting.
Dobbins, figuring that the if there are TV cameras in the room, nobody is going to want to question the shelter being established down town, so she made the meeting a "no media" event.
Then, a short time later, she decided to just cancel the meeting.
Of course, the TV station took credit - or would that be blame? - for the meeting being canceled. The lead-in to the TV report stated "some downtown business are not exactly rolling out the welcome mat" for the shelter.
And as for why the meeting was canceled, "our cameras were the reason why," the TV report said.
All this would have been pretty easy to avoid. Just have the meeting, cameras, reporters and all and let the chips fall. Or not have a meeting at all and just have people e-mail their questions.
Too late for that.
See, I don't really have an issue with there being a homeless shelter downtown, but I do have issues with things being mishandled to the point that it makes the town look backward and dopey.
First of all, this Lane guy should have, first and foremost, made contact with everybody he could downtown, let them know of his intentions and allay all of their concerns before he even entertained the idea of buying the Brennan's building.
This only makes things easier for Lane in the long run, because if everybody's on board, it is pretty unlikely that anyone would remonstrate against the project. Even though it fits the zoning, it still has to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A remonstrance could upend that process.
Before I closed on the property, I'd make darn sure everybody was on board with my plans.
Also, it seems to me there are some pretty significant state regulatory hurdles that must be overcome with regard to any renovations that need to be done to the building.
Again, I'd be sure all those things were in order before I did anything.
Then there's the larger issue of whether a homeless shelter is appropriate downtown. Well, pretty much every homeless shelter I've ever seen has been in a downtown, so I guess the answer is yes.
You just don't see rural homeless shelters.
Now, whether this particular location is the best use could be debated, but these people are homeless. That doesn't automatically mean they're criminals, drug abusers or trouble makers. I'm not sure what the objection would be. I mean, the Times-Union building is right across the street and the thought of having the shelter there doesn't bother me.
I'm sure they're going to have rules. It's not like they're going to let people loiter on the sidewalk out front or sleep on benches under newspapers.
My guess is, on any given day, there will probably be more staff members than homeless people in the building and it won't look much different than it does now.
I believe everybody will get on the same page and figure this thing out.
In the end, I have faith in the compassionate nature of our community. If Lane gets all his ducks in a row and we we truly need a homeless shelter, we'll have one.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092