Yes, I've noticed the overall increase in the take over of public spaces. Likely a sign that we need more resources for them, but I wish we could do better than The Mission. The population in Lansing do seem to be less aggressive than places like Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids, so I guess we have that going for us.
I've finally gotten back to utilizing the river trail and no longer feel all that comfortable using the portion past Kalamazoo St for similar reasons you've mentioned. It's a shame when a public resource is taken over by any group of people and prevents the enjoyment of others. Its always been sketchy under a lot of those bridges, but now it's much worse than I ever remember. On a positive note, I will say, I love the added paths over the years, but figured I'd save that for a post in the appropriate thread.
LSJ article gives update on City Rescue Mission move. It will be open by the end of next month; they took down their street sign earlier this week to move over to their new Kzoo location. LSJ has a few photos of the facility, which will be double the size of the current Michigan Avenue location.
I have thought of an idea to lessen the attraction to camp under the bridges along the river trail. Install very bright lights that are on 24/7. then install sharp rock covered cement in all the areas under the bridge that are not part of the trail, it could even be nice looking. I have not been that way in a while [are there lights?] but the space under the Kalamazoo Street bridge is huge flat and cool of course people will camp there. Short of something nice they could just fence the areas off. Perhaps another situation to outdoor camping downtown would be to provide an area outside of downtown where they can camp legally maybe even with some supervision and help offered.
IMO arguing that the Rescue Mission shouldn't get government funding because of their policies is reasonable and logical, but I believe in the right of organizations and individuals offering help to choose whom they offer help based on any criteria they choose. Society is also free to judge them, you or anyone can protest, or support/start an alternate organization that more aligns with their own views. Be careful asking for any sort of quasi-authoritarian measures, they can and will be turned against you once the door has been opened.
I just wonder how it's going to go being in a residential area. Some of the early articles said that they were allowing people to stay on site in between meals so that should help a lot if it ends up being true. As should the fact that the homeless population will be broken up into two areas now.
I think one part of the solution to dealing with the homeless problem is only offering support to people in their hometown or the a place they have lived in for x number of years. I'm worried that the effect of having improved homeless services is potentially attracting some chunk of the nationally transient population that will fill whatever void is created and then some. I've complained before about the small towns and suburbs not taking care of their own, becoming any kind of beyond-metro area haven for the homeless is not something we want to be. The climate is on our side, we just have to not go full on Portland or San Francisco with policy, those were self-inflicted problems on multiple levels.
Yet they're the ones who want to sue the LGBTQ homeless organizations for descrimination. If they weren't so actively promoting hate, that would be one thing. They are the ones who have started stirring the pot.
Almost any article that director is in just boils my blood. I will just say, I was raised in a religious household following a modest religion. We were never taught to hate, only to support whoever needed it. Not convert. It didn't matter, if someone was in need, you helped them. I'm no longer religious, but I still follow "be good to others". I don't believe the mission does. If they can't separate religion from their practice, they shouldn't receive any public funding. I know you weren't arguing against that...you can see the argument. If they're fully private and want to promote their own hateful values, I suppose that's their choice. I just also have to point it out as "my protest". It's also horrible when those in need have nowhere else to go. What choice do they have then to lie to be accepted for shelter by those that hate them?
That said, and thank you for reading lol, you make a lot of good points. My concern is having it in a less urban, more residential area as you mentioned. I'm hoping the expanded size reduces the lining up outside and on site. If they can maintain a better outward facing appearance, it would be a plus. Shocked they're moving that ancient sign (assuming I interpreted correctly).
I also agree on the aspect of attracting outside homeless, and that they should be dealt with at a local level. I hadn't thought about this, and am now even more concerned. If we could adequately fund these in all communities, it would be great to prevent being such a burden on urban centers.
Of course, addressing the root causes of homelessness would be best but we're never going to get funding to address that, just the problem.
Sorry, I'm taking this way off development but the way things are lately, low income housing and shelters seem to be a topic of discussion, so aspects around seem worthy of discussion.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. As socialist and commie it may sound, I honestly think that for MOST people a national living wage would be a path out of homelessness. Being homeless must be so exhausting, if a person had a bed and money to buy a food and personal items, they could free themselves from the daily trek of lining up for help of trying to find a place to be while waiting for the shelter to reopen, of digging through trash cans filled with pet waste for deposit cans. I think that everyone deserves a chance, and even if all they do with their "living wage" is not what we would do, to me it is not up to me how the recipient of charity uses it and is really none of my business. If the wage was universal than there would be no reason to rip off the system. It is not that crazy of an idea, but this world we find ourselves today charity and help come with judgement and ridicule. I am trying to visualize a different better world.
Seeing in the council agenda that the improved gravel road off of North Larch near Old Town I was complaining about may be part of a CSO project. They give the same address as the property I highlighted. Good to know that this might just be a temporary access given how messy it's made that block of Larch.
Nothing else new of interest on the agenda. They'll be voting on whether or not to approve the brownfield plans for the East Michigan Avenue and West Miller & South Washington projects.
Comments
I've finally gotten back to utilizing the river trail and no longer feel all that comfortable using the portion past Kalamazoo St for similar reasons you've mentioned. It's a shame when a public resource is taken over by any group of people and prevents the enjoyment of others. Its always been sketchy under a lot of those bridges, but now it's much worse than I ever remember. On a positive note, I will say, I love the added paths over the years, but figured I'd save that for a post in the appropriate thread.
I just wonder how it's going to go being in a residential area. Some of the early articles said that they were allowing people to stay on site in between meals so that should help a lot if it ends up being true. As should the fact that the homeless population will be broken up into two areas now.
I think one part of the solution to dealing with the homeless problem is only offering support to people in their hometown or the a place they have lived in for x number of years. I'm worried that the effect of having improved homeless services is potentially attracting some chunk of the nationally transient population that will fill whatever void is created and then some. I've complained before about the small towns and suburbs not taking care of their own, becoming any kind of beyond-metro area haven for the homeless is not something we want to be. The climate is on our side, we just have to not go full on Portland or San Francisco with policy, those were self-inflicted problems on multiple levels.
Almost any article that director is in just boils my blood. I will just say, I was raised in a religious household following a modest religion. We were never taught to hate, only to support whoever needed it. Not convert. It didn't matter, if someone was in need, you helped them. I'm no longer religious, but I still follow "be good to others". I don't believe the mission does. If they can't separate religion from their practice, they shouldn't receive any public funding. I know you weren't arguing against that...you can see the argument. If they're fully private and want to promote their own hateful values, I suppose that's their choice. I just also have to point it out as "my protest". It's also horrible when those in need have nowhere else to go. What choice do they have then to lie to be accepted for shelter by those that hate them?
That said, and thank you for reading lol, you make a lot of good points. My concern is having it in a less urban, more residential area as you mentioned. I'm hoping the expanded size reduces the lining up outside and on site. If they can maintain a better outward facing appearance, it would be a plus. Shocked they're moving that ancient sign (assuming I interpreted correctly).
I also agree on the aspect of attracting outside homeless, and that they should be dealt with at a local level. I hadn't thought about this, and am now even more concerned. If we could adequately fund these in all communities, it would be great to prevent being such a burden on urban centers.
Of course, addressing the root causes of homelessness would be best but we're never going to get funding to address that, just the problem.
Sorry, I'm taking this way off development but the way things are lately, low income housing and shelters seem to be a topic of discussion, so aspects around seem worthy of discussion.
Nothing else new of interest on the agenda. They'll be voting on whether or not to approve the brownfield plans for the East Michigan Avenue and West Miller & South Washington projects.