I
IWantGod
Guest
Why would somebody sue a homeless shelter?!!!
Last edited:
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
In a word, lifestyle.Peeps:
Why would somebody sue a homeless shelter?!!!
P
Peeps
Guest
The homeowner isn’t suing the homeless shelter. They are suing the CITY. And they’re not suing for a cash settlement, but for what they consider a just change in policy.
Here’s the opening two sentences from the article:
"A group called Friends of Waverly Inc. filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking an injunction against the temporary 100-bed shelter planned near the William Mulholland Memorial Fountain on Riverside Drive.
The suit claims when the City Council approved the shelter plans in December, there was “no official lawfully enacted emergency shelter declaration” needed to exempt the project from state-mandated environmental review. It also accuses the city of “abuse of discretion” by not holding a planning commission hearing on the plans."
P
Peeps
Guest
These kinds of lawsuits against city governments have been going on as long as the U.S. has had cities and city governments.
Way back when I was a teenager (back in the early 1970s), an organization wanted to establish a home for wayward teens in a “nice” neighborhood in my city. They planned to purchase one of those “nice” homes and house young women who had “gone astray”, meaning “pregnant”. This was before Roe v. Wade turned abortion into birth control and made “Homes for Wayward Girls” unnecessary.
There were good reasons to build the home in a “nice” neighborhood. The plan was to give the girls positive role models among the neighbors, who were successful in their jobs and families. Remember, this was back in the time when most women didn’t work outside the home, but were home all day raising children and making a good home–that’s the kind of role models that the wayward girls needed.
Also, the crime rates in these neighborhoods were very, very low, and there was no visible presence of drugs, gangs, crimes, etc.–just a nice atmosphere to have a baby and get your life back on track. And the schools were good–high-achieving public schools within walking distance.
But the neighbors protested strongly, very strongly, just as this homeowner is doing. The main reason is that they were paying some of the highest property taxes in the city for the privilege of living in their “nice” neighborhood and in those beautiful homes that were highly-valued by the tax-assessors, which meant that these homes would sell for a lot of money, which could mean a very nice retirement for the homeowners someday.
They didn’t want their property values to go down and their neighborhood to become known as a “not nice” neighborhood because of the Home for Wayward Girls.
I remember writing a letter to the newspaper urging the neighbors to give the young women a chance and help them to build better lives and move up in the world.
I received an invitation to serve on a Board of adults to help with the establishment of the Home. I accepted the invitation and served on the Board mainly by coming to meetings and showing up for activities.
But in the end, the homeowners won, and the Home was never established in their neighborhood.
Funny, though–now we have a whole network of various “Homes” in many “nice” neighborhoods (most of which are now considered" established" which is a euphemism for “OLD!”). These homes are not only for women involved in a crisis pregnancy, but also for the mentally ill, the paralyzed, the profoundly-disabled, the recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, and other people who are considered “not normal.”
As for those people who want a neighborhood free of such homes, they have continued to move further out into extremely exclusive (and expensive!) subdivisions, many of which are so far out in the country that they are considered “unincorporated”. These people still pay unbelievably high property taxes for the privilege of being wealthy–the whole State of Illinois pays unbelievably high property taxes.
Last edited:
Both uncharitable and judgemental.
P
pnewton
Guest
What is done to the homeless, is done do Jesus.
Actually, it is the least of his brothers.
But I suppose homeless would fit that bill.
Of course, one could also look at the homeowners the same way.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not see how much is being done to the homeowner. He still has the same house. While his property value might be affected, the nature of all investments is that they are speculative.
P
Peeps
Guest
It depends. Some people on this thread have described situations in which a shelter brought a very unpleasant and even fearful element into their formerly peaceful and safe neighborhood. Many of the homeless are either mentally-ill, addicted (which is a form of mental illness), or both. Not everyone is comfortable with these people–as Christians, yes, we should love them, but in real life, not everyone has the personality to be able to be comfortable with someone who manifests various symptoms of mental illness.
At the very least, a shelter increases traffic–human and mechanical (cars, buses, ambulances, laundry trucks, etc.)
And some people are even bothered by the presence of a building that clashes architecturally with their established neighborhood (think about it, pnewton–how many threads have you read on CAF about “modern monstrosity churches”!–some people are truly upset by building designs!). Or just having a building in a space that used to be a vacant lot with grasses and trees–it’s hard to stare at concrete instead of nature.
Last edited:
J
Jen95
Guest
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I knew this little piece of misdirection was due. But yes, many do, in fact, house someone for a time without a place to live. I have. I bet others here have as well.
J
Jen95
Guest
Just think if Christians would do that. Maybe they would be featured in the diocesan newspaper.
Last edited:
H
hoping4more
Guest
Build it between the police station and hospital.
P
Peeps
Guest
Because most of us are not knowledgeable and skilled to be able to provide real help to someone who is homeless. We are naive, street-ignorant, gullible, easily-conned, and too soft-hearted to lay down rules and follow through when they are broken.
In all likelihood, we could do more harm than good because we have no idea what we are doing.
That doesn’t mean we should turn away from trying to help, but the BEST way for us to help is not invite homeless strangers into our homes, but rather, GIVE generously of our monies and possibly volunteer hours to organizations like the Salvation Army, local rescue missions, and others that have a tried and true record of success helping the homeless to trumph over whatever problems made them homeless.
Think about how many of us have difficulty raising our own children, our flesh and blood!
Kind of like medicine–we can and should do what we can to help those who are hurt or sick (including those who are mentally and emotionally ill). But if we don’t know what we are doing, we can actually do more harm than good!
BTW, my husband and I served as a “shelter home” for several years when we lived down in North Carolina. We gave room and board to women in crisis pregnancy. For us, it was a fairly good experience, but the last woman that we sheltered was a disaster. I don’t want to go into details, but one detail that I will share is that when we took her to our church (an Evangelical Protestant church at that time), she glommed onto a young man who was planning to enter the seminary. He wanted to help her, and what ended up happening is that they got married after only knowing each other for a few months. It was not a good situation, especially for him. We now realize that she was in a “survival mode” and was willing to do anything, say anything, believe anything in order to survive–to find shelter and sustenance for herself and her baby. Now there’s nothing “evil” about that, but what it means is that she was capable of doing harm to anyone that she thought could help (or hurt) her, and we were fortunate that we came out of it OK. But the young man’s entire life was upended, his parents were devastated, and our church was left shaken by the whole episode. Once she had her baby, she and her new husband were gone, and we never heard from either of them again. So sad.
I do think that if we have friends or relatives who become homeless for some reason (e.g., unemployment and lack of funds) that we should open up our homes and our bounties to then, WITH THE PROVISION that it’s not an open-ended arrangement. I think that we would sit down with a counselor or with someone at our local Rescue Mission and work out a plan that would hold our “guests” accountable for working towards fixing whatever made them homeless (e.g., actively seeking a new job, overcoming an addiction, etc.).
We don’t do anyone good by enabling them to continue a path that leaves them totally dependent on others for sustenance.
You called for everyone to see Jesus in the homeless, while avoiding seeing Jesus in the homeowners.
I think a little calling to the mat concerning selective following of Jesus’ word may be in order.
P
pnewton
Guest
I am not selective. I see why the Church is so concerned about people trying to interpret Scripture for themselves though. A person is not responsible to tend to every poor. Rather Jesus commands that we treat those in need that are in my path as if they are he, or as if they are ourselves - The Golden Rule. That does not mean that everyone who does not go out a recruit a homeless person or two is selective. Please, let the Church do the teaching here.
I do not think I am the only one who has opened their home to one in need. I know many others who have done this. I surely would not object if there was a homeless shelter open down the street, or did I object to the half-way house nearby, though I do not think many knew of it. I understand the need and reject the selfishness of “not in my neighborhood thinking.” Nothing selective about that.
That may or may not work depending on many factors. Here such a placement halfway would be in a residential neighborhood by the Catholic Church. It would work fine.
- Status