Proposition 14 - Homeless Shelter

[effulgent]

PROPOSITION NO. 14

"The issuance of $23,800,000 general obligation bonds for homeless assistance facilities, including housing facilities for the homeless"

(Text from Dallas County Sample Ballot (http://www.dalcoelections.org/november82005/Sample_Ballot.htm) - November 8th election)

I thought it would be interesting to see how everyone felt on this issue. I also think it would be interesting to see who votes yes vs no who are downtown residents/employees vs people who do not live downtown. Also, please post your reasoning behind why you plan on voting the way that you do.

[Tnekster]

I don't think this has been thought through enough yet. I know we voted for funding a shelter in a previous bond election and now they have come back for more. From what I have read about this proposal the facility would be inadequate and the location concerns me because of downtown redevelopment. I am worried about building something that actually attracts more homeless to downtown and does not really deal with the issue. I know some other cities like San Francisco are taking a different approach that actually deals with the problems of each individual instead of building some general location for everyone to gather around. I think too many of our homeless were left on the street when mental facilities were closed down in the past. They were in there for a reason and this does nothing to address that issue.

[FoUTASportscaster]

If it is downtown, I feel it will undoubtedly hinder some of the development efforts. I say put it on the border with Mesquite.

[Milkman Dan]

There are a ton of "No" signs for 14 in and around my area.

[monogodo]

Those of you who are voting "yes", could you explain why?

I know why I'm voting "no", I just want to read why you're voting "yes".

Thanks.

[TexasStar]

I'm voting "yes", but it's not with a great deal of conviction. I can see both sides of the issue. I can understand why some people are very concerned that putting the center downtown will negatively affect redevelopment. Heck, I'm one of them!

But, we already have a "homeless" problem downtown that affects efforts to revitalize. Given that we've got dirty people wandering around, sleeping on streets, urinating in doorways, why not try giving them a place to sleep, wash up, and go to the bathroom? (In a location they will actually use.)

I'd love to have it built on the border with Mesquite, or anywhere but downtown, but put it someplace else and if it's used at all, it will only be by the homeless who own a car.

If I'm missing something, please tell me.

[drumguy8800]

Housing facilities... is key, i think. Concentrating poverty is *never* a good plan.

Maybe another vote..
A.) Lots of small homeless shelters (7 or 8) spread around the CBD including more affluent areas, affecting each area in a smaller way
B.) One homeless shelter that will concentrate the homeless problem, affecting one area in a big way

I drove down Cadiz yesterday and its interesting to see that the anti-epicenter of activity is the day resource center on Cadiz. I wouldn't build my corporate HQ or res. tower there -- but I don't think I'd have a problem with being a block from a small (20-40 occupant) shelter.

Another important thing is that homeless populations are very mobile. If Dallas has cool digs, here comes a mass migration on the greyhound.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Housing facilities... is key, i think. Concentrating poverty is *never* a good plan.

I'd love to hear the reasons for this. I am genuinely curious.




Maybe another vote..
A.) Lots of small homeless shelters (7 or 8) spread around the CBD including more affluent areas, affecting each area in a smaller way
B.) One homeless shelter that will concentrate the homeless problem, affecting one area in a big way.

I drove down Cadiz yesterday and its interesting to see that the anti-epicenter of activity is the day resource center on Cadiz. I wouldn't build my corporate HQ or res. tower there -- but I don't think I'd have a problem with being a block from a small (20-40 occupant) shelter.

I am in favor of the option south of DTD near I-30 and I-45. Put the cluster in an area that is secluded from everything.


Another important thing is that homeless populations are very mobile. If Dallas has cool digs, here comes a mass migration on the greyhound.


That has me worried the most.

[drumguy8800]

I'd love to hear the reasons for this. I am genuinely curious.It was touched on in the High-rise projects (gov. housing) thread, specifically in this post (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost.php?p=88890&postcount=10) by Jorge.. but the reasoning would be this:

It may make a lot of assumptions, but barring semantics and exceptions, I think it holds water.

It takes *quite* a few mistakes..
(drug-use, gambling, or other money-draining (/societal-draining) addictions
apathy towards education
apathy towards future)
.. to be poor in this country. Thusly, it can be assumed that a majority of the poor have a tendency towards poor decisions.. meaning they are not only socio-economically outcasts but they have outcasted themselves from society through these decisions. The resulting hopelessness only encourages other pleasure-inducing addictions that drain the limited resources that the people have.

Concentrating them would thus be like eating a block of lead. If you shoved a cubic centimeter of led into your mouth and swallowed, there's a good chance that you're going to have some serious reprocussions. But if that lead is spread out to the effect of .005 ppm in drinking water, it's not going to be a problem for you at all.

Also, if the poor are a minority in an environment, they may be influenced more towards positive forward-motion because they see how easy it is to *not* be poor.

These of course ignore the mentally inept homeless who don't have any other chance at life other than a sanitarium (does the gov't fund those anymore..?), and those who choose to be homeless because they expect their environment to take care of them.

[tamtagon]

The homeless shelter should be an extention of the Psyc dept of Parkland Hospital.

[RobertB]

The homeless shelter should be an extention of the Psyc dept of Parkland Hospital.
Lesson number one of psychiatric medicine: If the person doesn't want to change, they won't change. They have to not only see that they have a problem, but they have to want to fix it.

It seems strange to think that someone would have a problem that destroys their life, and the life of those around them... and *not* want to do something about it. But I've seen firsthand the damage that can be done by someone for whom the fear of taking responsibility is greater than the desire to stop hurting.

There should be psychiatric facilities readily available for the homeless -- absolutely, 100%. It's needed for those cases where a person hits rock bottom and decides to stand back up... and for the cases where the person goes the other way, and is a threat to himself and to others. But I don't think the homeless shelters should be *run* by the Psych department, because it would be a waste of their specialized resources.

Since "the homeless" are as diverse as society, our plan should be equally diverse. How about this:

* Let Parkland treat those homeless with mental illnesses -- the ones, that is, who want to change or can't be allowed to be on their own.

* Put an arm of Child Protective services in charge of homeless families. It's a lot harder for a single mom and her kids to get off the street, once homeless -- a woman by herself can't just move into any neighborhood and be safe. She'll need targeted help and training to take care of herself and her children. But if she won't make the hard choices required, CPS needs to be there to make sure the kids don't suffer from their mother's mistakes.

* Truly temporary shelter for individuals who find themselves temporarily down on their luck, but who can work their way back out of the hole (and are willing to do so).

* Finally, for the who would prefer the freedom of despair over the demands of society, there needs to be some sort of long-term management program with modest goals: Keep them safe from themselves and from each other, and meet the basic needs for food, shelter, and hygeine.

I haven't been involved in the homeless debates on this board, so I suspect these ideas have already been proposed... sorry for any duplication!

[ksig121]

I voted yes simply because the funding needs to be there when a plan is finalized. There has been enough push back from the residents/businesses of the CBD that this thing is far from finalized. I like th idea of dispersing these centers throughout the city. I think that we just need to remain engaged in the conversation and force those who represent us to come up with a thoughtful solution to this problem.

[effulgent]

Lesson number one of psychiatric medicine: If the person doesn't want to change, they won't change. They have to not only see that they have a problem, but they have to want to fix it.





How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?

-Just one, but the light has to really want to change.










Now back to your regularly schedule thread ...

[Flaming Moderate]

Ole Anthony had a good column in the DMN last week ... I would like to see churches get involved to help those who want help. What if every church, synagogue, mosque, etc. adopted a homeless person or family?

This is going to be unpopular, but I almost of the mindset to say: "Do you want help?" If the answer is yes, provide all one needs to get back on one's feet. If not, intern them. I know that is harsh, etc.; but philosophically, I would place this in the logic of seat belt and helmet laws - yes, you do have a right not to wear a seat belt, but I also have a right not to have to pay for your medical car as a result of said decision. Maybe as a collective society we decide we're not going to let a large group of people roam the streets and do as they see fit ... my wife was aggresively accosted by a homeless dude last week, and she still is shaken up about it.

[RobertB]

This is going to be unpopular, but I almost of the mindset to say: "Do you want help?" If the answer is yes, provide all one needs to get back on one's feet. If not, intern them. I know that is harsh, etc.
"Intern them" *lol*

My first thought was of last Sunday's Dilbert (http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20051030.html) comic, involving the office intern. I'll flout US copyright law and include it here for your edification (admins feel free to remove to avoid lawsuit, or whatever).

[Flaming Moderate]

yeah, I deserved that! ;) inter ...

[Mballar]

Ole Anthony had a good column in the DMN last week ... I would like to see churches get involved to help those who want help. What if every church, synagogue, mosque, etc. adopted a homeless person or family?
It wouldn't work. I think the Churches' agendas are already filled up with banning abortion, gay marriage, alcohol sales, promoting "intelligent design" (whatever that is) and the recent Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.

I too like the proposal floated by drumguy, whereby there would be numerous homeless centers spread throughout the city.

[Columbus Civil]

I'd like to adopt a homeless person and keep it as a pet.

[monogodo]

This is going to be unpopular, but I almost of the mindset to say: "Do you want help?" If the answer is yes, provide all one needs to get back on one's feet. If not, intern them. I know that is harsh, etc.; but philosophically, I would place this in the logic of seat belt and helmet laws - yes, you do have a right not to wear a seat belt, but I also have a right not to have to pay for your medical car as a result of said decision. Maybe as a collective society we decide we're not going to let a large group of people roam the streets and do as they see fit ... my wife was aggresively accosted by a homeless dude last week, and she still is shaken up about it.
Actually, it's not the same logic at all. By refusing help, they cost us nothing. There is a guaranteed cost affixed to them accepting the help you suggest. And by interring them, they cost us even more.

[jsoto3]

The CDA (http://www.downtowndallas.org/)'s stance:

http://www.downtowndallas.com/current.htm#hac

Voting yes to Proposition 14 on November 8 will provide $23.8 million in bond money to build a homeless assistance center, a facility where the homeless will be provided with resources ranging from basic showers and laundry to a full range of social services. The Central Dallas Association wants to remind you how important it is to get out and vote - Proposition 14 is critical for Downtown Dallas!

The CDA has studied and debated the issue, and as a result presents the following 5-Point Position in favor of VOTING YES to Proposition 14:

1. Do Something - continuation of the status quo with no action is unacceptable.
Current services are inadequate to either serve the homeless, or to address the needs of Downtown. If the Day Resource Center loses its lease this problem could grow further out of control.

2. Build a New Center That’s Within Easy Walking Distance to Downtown.
Failure to do so would be as bad for Downtown as it would be for the homeless population. Any idea that the homeless in Downtown will go away if an assistance center is located elsewhere ignores history and studies from around the country that prove otherwise.

3. Design it Right.
This has been somewhat lost in the location debate. Having adequate room, outdoor space, and enabling services to be provided to displace the current troublesome providers will have a significant benefit for Downtown.

4. Enforce the Law.
In order to be able to enforce current city ordinances, a facility has to exist which can accommodate the offenders. The City and its citizens must be able to provide the services in an organized and professional manner to be able to keep our streets and public areas attractive and safe.

5. Make the Final Answer a Citywide Solution.
Homeless assistance needs to be provided at locations throughout the city and the county as well. A plan must be developed to provide permanent housing solutions outside Central Dallas.

Where exactly should the Center be? The Central Dallas Association entrusts the city planners and specialists to make that decision. But let’s pass Proposition 14 by voting yes - build the Center right and build it soon!

[FoUTASportscaster]

It was touched on in the High-rise projects (gov. housing) thread, specifically in this post (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showpost.php?p=88890&postcount=10) by Jorge.. but the reasoning would be this:

It may make a lot of assumptions, but barring semantics and exceptions, I think it holds water.

It takes *quite* a few mistakes..
(drug-use, gambling, or other money-draining (/societal-draining) addictions
apathy towards education
apathy towards future)
.. to be poor in this country. Thusly, it can be assumed that a majority of the poor have a tendency towards poor decisions.. meaning they are not only socio-economically outcasts but they have outcasted themselves from society through these decisions. The resulting hopelessness only encourages other pleasure-inducing addictions that drain the limited resources that the people have.

Concentrating them would thus be like eating a block of lead. If you shoved a cubic centimeter of led into your mouth and swallowed, there's a good chance that you're going to have some serious reprocussions. But if that lead is spread out to the effect of .005 ppm in drinking water, it's not going to be a problem for you at all.

Also, if the poor are a minority in an environment, they may be influenced more towards positive forward-motion because they see how easy it is to *not* be poor.

These of course ignore the mentally inept homeless who don't have any other chance at life other than a sanitarium (does the gov't fund those anymore..?), and those who choose to be homeless because they expect their environment to take care of them.


Good stuff. Makes a lot of sence. Sometimes all one needs is better surroundings that can keep them from falling back. Of Course, the big difference between a homeless shelter and concentrated poor people is the homeless shelter is trying to better the poor.





The CDA (http://www.downtowndallas.org/)'s stance:

http://www.downtowndallas.com/current.htm#hac


I am surprised. I would have thought they would be the other way.

[tamtagon]

If the person doesn't want to change, they won't change. They have to not only see that they have a problem, but they have to want to fix it.

There should be psychiatric facilities readily available for the homeless -- absolutely, 100%.

But I don't think the homeless shelters should be *run* by the Psych department, because it would be a waste of their specialized resources.

Having the shelter in the hospital would not be to treat the mental illness of the homeless, rather to treat the physical illness of the homeless, extend the financial burden to all Dallas County residents, allow for a scientific census of the homeless and catalogue of conditions and put health care professionals (instead of the police) in charge of screening this subset of the population to accurately identify those individuals which pose a public threat through disease or behavior.

I can think of no better place than a hospital for a shelter to provide the homeless population a facility to get cleaned up and healthy, as well as to provide health care professionals the opportunity to better understand this segment of the population.

[mdunlap1]

What if every church, synagogue, mosque, etc. adopted a homeless person or family?

Get the government out of the way, and they would. As they did when the government was forced out of the way (sadly, only temporarily) by Katrina.

The government has stolen this job and monopolized it (as it has with schooling, low-income housing, trash collecting, and a million other things it does extremely poorly and inefficiently).

[mdunlap1]

I think the Churches' agendas are already filled up with banning abortion, gay marriage, alcohol sales, promoting "intelligent design" (whatever that is) and the recent Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.

Even if that was the case (and their Katrina response showed that however lame their obsession with those political issues is, they are clearly not "too filled up" to help people in need), it is still no justification for using the state to force people to do what you want.

If churches went about threatening people with violence if they didn't give them their money (for whatever "common good" they claimed it would be used for), you would rage at them. Yet when the state does the exact same thing, you are completely onboard and willing to assist (with your vote).

There's a word (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/hypocrisy.html) for that.

[Flaming Moderate]

It wouldn't work. I think the Churches' agendas are already filled up with banning abortion, gay marriage, alcohol sales, promoting "intelligent design" (whatever that is) and the recent Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.

Really? I have not been to a church that is filled with that agenda? Which one do you attend that does?

[Flaming Moderate]

Actually, it's not the same logic at all. By refusing help, they cost us nothing. There is a guaranteed cost affixed to them accepting the help you suggest. And by interring them, they cost us even more.

Yes, you are correct.

[RobertB]

It wouldn't work. I think the Churches' agendas are already filled up with banning abortion, gay marriage, alcohol sales, promoting "intelligent design" (whatever that is) and the recent Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito.Really? I have not been to a church that is filled with that agenda? Which one do you attend that does?
Don't be too upset. We Christians have done a poor job of answering the knock at the door ("as you have done for the least of these..."), or at least, it's sure not what makes the news.

What some loudmouths who call themselves Christians have done is to associate the name of Christ with all of the above hot-button issues. Did the judge in Alabama bring anyone to Christ by planting a multi-ton Ten Commandments monument in the middle of the State Supreme Court building? I doubt it, and I know he made a lot of people think that Christianity isn't something they want to be associated with.

Meanwhile, local churches (like Irwindell United Methodist (http://www.irwindell.org/) in Oak Cliff), have been quietly tending to those in need. R. Mbala, you should go visit Irwindell when they open "Our Neighbor's Closet", the congregation's ongoing program to give shoes, clothes, school supplies, and love to the people of the neighborhood. You can help sign in the single moms, or maybe you can find shoes to fit the bare feet of a toddler whose father was sent back to Mexico by the INS. You could even talk to the teachers at the elementary school across the street about the pencils, paper, and backpacks that Irwindell has given for children who arrived at school with nothing.

I try not to judge all atheists by Madalyn Murray O'Hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair)... I hope that non-Christians can avoid judging us by Pat Robertson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson).

[Mballar]

My religious beliefs aside (which are personal), it appears to me that there are a few forumers who appear to be aggitated by my comment in post no. 17. For the record, my comments were meant, by me, to be a joke. Unfortunately, my characterization of christian religious bodies' agendas is closer to reality than parody. I'd love to beleive otherwise, though. So, please point me in the direction of some mainstream christian congregations that are standing up and saying that their positions on the social issues I've mentioned "should not be supported through legislation because those positions are discriminatory and because this is a free country where religion and government should remain separate," even though those same people feel that they are on the morally right side of the issue?

[ksig121]

My religious beliefs aside (which are personal), it appears to me that there are a few forumers who appear to be aggitated by my comment in post no. 17. For the record, my comments were meant, by me, to be a joke. Unfortunately, my characterization of christian religious bodies' agendas is closer to reality than parody. I'd love to beleive otherwise, though. So, please point me in the direction of some mainstream christian congregations that are standing up and saying that their positions on the social issues I've mentioned "should not be supported through legislation because those positions are discriminatory and because this is a free country where religion and government should remain separate," even though those same people feel that they are on the morally right side of the issue?

How about the United Church of Christ? This denomination has been on the forefront of social change throughout our countrys history. They were the first abolitionists, they campaigned for women's sufferage, they were key in the civil rights movement and now they are the first mainstream denomination to marry same-sex couples.

[RobertB]

My religious beliefs aside (which are personal), it appears to me that there are a few forumers who appear to be aggitated by my comment in post no. 17. For the record, my comments were meant, by me, to be a joke. Unfortunately, my characterization of christian religious bodies' agendas is closer to reality than parody. I'd love to beleive otherwise, though. So, please point me in the direction of some mainstream christian congregations that are standing up and saying that their positions on the social issues I've mentioned "should not be supported through legislation because those positions are discriminatory and because this is a free country where religion and government should remain separate," even though those same people feel that they are on the morally right side of the issue?
I see your point (though I think the discussion on that point needs to be in this contentious thread (http://forum.dallasmetropolis.com/showthread.php?t=4736)). I'd suggest the Methodist Church as a denomination that comes down generally -- though not entirely -- on the side of the freedom to make your own personal choice. However, I'd submit to you that congregations like Irwindell are too busy feeding and clothing people to worry about who they're with when the lights go down.

You did mention alcohol sales, though, as one of the items on the "church agenda" that prevents churches from helping those in need. Alcohol, like almost anything else, is not evil in and of itself... after all, Jesus didn't turn wine into water. But the ready availablity of cheap, retail liquor must be considered at least an enabling factor in the homeless problem. It's also rather difficult to bring development to a neighborhood where the local retail caters exclusively to buyers of MD 20|20 and 40oz beer.

What would happen if all the homeless facilities were located no less than one mile from all "wet" areas of town, I wonder...

[Flaming Moderate]

I am not upset, I just did not realize RM was such an expert on Christianity. For example, since Samuel Alito was nominated Monday, I find it interesting that he is so certain churches support him ... especially since most churches tend to meet on Wednesday and Sunday, and neither one of those have occurred since Alito's nomination. Maybe there was a secret Monday meeting of which I was unaware. Clearly, I do not attend church as often as he does. Other than the black pastor's group that came out against gay marriage, I am unaware of a big organized Church agenda. Surely, being such an avid churchgoer and expert on Christianity, RM is aware of the great diversity that runs through Christian life.

To Robert's point, I agree with him. The Church must do more to care for the least of these. However, it has done a lot. Virtually every social program in the United States (including the Labor Movement) has its roots in the churches.

[Mballar]

I am not upset, I just did not realize RM was such an expert on Christianity. For example, since Samuel Alito was nominated Monday, I find it interesting that he is so certain churches support him ... especially since most churches tend to meet on Wednesday and Sunday, and neither one of those have occurred since Alito's nomination. Maybe there was a secret Monday meeting of which I was unaware. Clearly, I do not attend church as often as he does. Other than the black pastor's group that came out against gay marriage, I am unaware of a big organized Church agenda. Surely, being such an avid churchgoer and expert on Christianity, RM is aware of the great diversity that runs through Christian life.

To Robert's point, I agree with him. The Church must do more to care for the least of these. However, it has done a lot. Virtually every social program in the United States (including the Labor Movement) has its roots in the churches.

Again, a majority of your post is devoted to surreptitiously attacking me, rather than addressing the core issue at hand in this most recent discussion. :( I ask that you refrain from your personal attacks. However, if you feel that you are incapable of doing that, please just PM me rather than subject the rest of the forum to your remarks. Thanks.

[Flaming Moderate]

Clearly, I am not attacking you simply responding to your rather ignorant post. Nothing ad hominem there. And sarcasm is surreptitious only to the dull (I am not calling you dull, please understand).

[Mballar]

I stand by my previous posts. Now, you're welcome to have the last word.

[TexasStar]

I'm reminded why it's almost always a bad idea to discuss religion.

[Flaming Moderate]

Ignorance really is bliss.

[effulgent]

Wrong home for center


Common sense dictates that Dallas' Homeless Assistance Center should not be downtown.

For 7 ½ years, I operated Amelia's Place bed and breakfast at Young and St. Paul. I was turned down for membership renewal by the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau because "too many homeless people hang around your building," although I had no control over who uses the streets and sidewalks.

Why did council members endorse a $23 million bond issue to put the homeless center downtown? They know it will not help the "homeless problem," and they know downtown entrepreneurs oppose the site.

Private donors pledged $7 million to buy the old Dallas Rehabilitation Center on Harry Hines Boulevard and give it to the city. Across the street are a gas station, a recycling center and a city dump. On 15.75 acres are 158,000 square feet of usable buildings – in excellent condition and landscaped.

Why pay so much for something they can get for free?

Wouldn't the providers, mostly church people trying to gain stars in their heavenly crowns, be willing to go a few miles north?

Amelia Core Jenkins, Dallas

[RobertB]

For 7 ½ years, I operated Amelia's Place bed and breakfast at Young and St. Paul. I was turned down for membership renewal by the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau because "too many homeless people hang around your building," although I had no control over who uses the streets and sidewalks.
Admittedly, I don't have a dog in this fight (although there used to be a poor farm (http://www.poorhousestory.com/TX_kaufman_county_pf2.htm) just outside of Kaufman -- that's another alternative). But I'd sure like to see the letter from the DCVB saying "too many homeless people around your building."

Edit: Ms. Amelia said something else that is particularly irritating (though I'm re-opening Pandora's Box to point it out):

Wouldn't the providers, mostly church people trying to gain stars in their heavenly crowns, be willing to go a few miles north?
For what it's worth, at least according to the theology I've been taught, you can't buy your way into heaven with your good works. It works that way in the movies -- in Little Nicky, the son of Satan gets to go to Heaven (and see his mom) because he did something nice. So I can understand Ms. Amelia's confusion. But before she takes a swipe at us "church people", maybe she should come visit some Sunday... on the other hand, there are plenty of people *in* church who get "doing good deeds because of your faith" and "doing good deeds to get into Heaven" mixed up.

I'll try to stop talking about religion now... God willing. :)

[Milkman Dan]

Everyone should go downtown and drive by Amelia's, it's a hoot. Although she indeed has no control over who uses the sidewalks around her establishment, but I'm sure she's not going to call the police for much - google her website.

On the h.c. issue, we were told all along: 'not to worry - of course we won't put a bond package up for election w/o clearly stating the location and conditions of it's existance.' Hasn't happened and it's no surprise. Frankly I don't see much chance of this passing.

[RobertB]

Everyone should go downtown and drive by Amelia's, it's a hoot. Although she indeed has no control over who uses the sidewalks around her establishment, but I'm sure she's not going to call the police for much - google her website.
Not sure what you mean... it looks like a nice little place! Here's a blurb from her website (http://www.ameliasplace.com/):

Amelia welcomes people of any color, unmarried couples, same-sex couples, smokers. Amelia’s place is not suitable for children, pets, snobs, bigots, nor fanatics. Amelia especially enjoys people who possess the attributes of intelligence, integrity, and compassion, so, please, leave your prejudices at home.
It sounds like the only problem she'd have with calling the police is if the police decide to hassle her guests -- and given the stories of police corruption in the southern sector, that's entirely possible.

[effulgent]

RE: Amelia's "heavenly stars" comment

I've been published in the DMN Letters page, and I discovered with my letter that they greatly edit (read: massacre) letters, or at least they did in my case. It's entirely possible that what she said was taken a bit out of context.

Also, while I've met many good hearted Christians (Catholic, Protestant, LDS, etc) who truly do good to follow Christ's example and to help their fellow man, I've also met a few who only do good out of guilt, or to build up their status among men or for their "future rewards."

That being said, it was a rather cheap swipe.

[beenthere2000]

Even though the elections are over concerniong the homeless shelter id downtown Dallas I would like to say that the ones that just voted yes. Just got took by the entire city coucil.
How do I know? its easy I was once hoomeless So I know about the programs offered. Did you know that through State grants that the city of dallas has and have been haveing the money to house the entire 6000 + that are homeless. Did you know that there have been over 100 differnt business owners that have offerd the city wharehouses to help provide houseing fr the homeless.
Just like last year when the city of Dallas payed a few million to have a new animal shelter built. But said they only had a million for the homeless.
By the city now haveing the citizens permission to build a sheltor. The homeless population will only grow Why? Because since the city will also be houseing the homeless The more money the city Not the county but the city will be able to get from the government. But unless someone ask to see the books We the citizens of Dallas County will never know just how money the city will be getting thanks to the ones that voted yes.
So you see here in the next couple of years when you wonder why nothing is being done about the homeless situation Remeber that the bill was passed for the CITY OF DALLAS TO BUILD AND OPERATE A HOMELESS SHELTER>
Plus the fact is that ones that are homeless stay homeless because its easy to remain that way. All you need is people to feed you A place to shower and sleep. And guess what Now the homeless now have that.
Even befor the votes the Day resource center provided showers. phones and so called social workers to help the client as we they are called.
But did you know that the homeless was allowed to just hang out there all day long So that covers shelter from the elements.
You know I will end this now But if anyone wants to know just how much easier youhave just made it for the homless to remain homeless Call me at 972-415-5109
My name is not important here.
oh I am sure since I am new memebr that this will probaly be edited all to pieces. But just incase its not Then I welcom all calls. Or contact me email at rkinard2000@yahoo.com
I will answer all emails concerning this matter.

[beenthere2000]

The CDA (http://www.downtowndallas.org/)'s stance:

http://www.downtowndallas.com/current.htm#hac
Sorry but the city of dallas just shookerd alot of folks I use to be homeless The city has always had the funds to help the homeless. i should know I was homeless once.
All that will happend by voteing yes will make it easier for the ones that like being homoeless.

[Columbus Civil]

All that will happend by voteing yes will make it easier for the ones that like being homoeless.

This should go on the Prop 2 thread.

[Columbus Civil]

Welcome to the forum, beenthere. It will be good to have your insight on issues like this.

[hamiltonpl]

Beenthere,

Your experiences are invaluable on this thread. Thank you for your candor.

What percentage of the homeless were people that wanted to be homeless?

Do you feel that if you do not want to be homeless, that you will find a way out?

[Columbus Civil]

We have another forumer who was homeless at one time. I think he's commented on this issue before.

[gc]

We have another forumer who was homeless at one time. I think he's commented on this issue before.

Good memory...

That person has been quiet lately.

[Columbus Civil]

He probably stopped posting after I turned the forum into a gay cruising site. :(

[WestTexan]

I also appreciate Beenthere2000's insight, but realize the new Dallas homeless assistance center will primarily target the chronic homeless. The problem of chronic homelessness is much more acute than the helping those who are temporarily homeless.

I don't think most people understand this, but most chronic homeless have no ability to help themselves. Even if they have the will to help themselves, they do not have the ability because of mental illness or addition. Help them find a job and they will loose it. Help them find a home and they will abandon it for the streets. This is a problem that exists in every society and in every city on earth. Open a homeless assistance center absolutely will not create a larger class of chronic homeless. But it will get them off our streets and provides some dignity to their existence.

I am extremely pleased about the passage of prop 14. It's not a solution to the problem, but it is the right way for Dallas to deal with the homeless we have.