Homeless Center In the Old Armory Building...Brilliant!

[02roadking]

More info about the "PLAN" 

According to the City, the day center should provide space, equipment and furnishings to accommodate:

• Reception area seating and laminated photo-membership ID processing

• Universal intake to access to full array of homeless services

• Office space ensuring security and confidentiality

• Restrooms, showers and storage lockers

• Clothing closet, washers and dryers

• Mailboxes and mailing address

• Telephones and community voice mail

• Computers with Internet connections

• Exercise and recreation area

• Outside recreation patio area

• Access to medical clinic

• Security

• Rotating service providers linking to other available services

Thank you Karen,  http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537799

[CityLife]

like I said, Im not taking sides.  Im just pointing out that a bunch of residents not wanting something in their neighborhood as in:

I'll give you $100 bucks if you find me another residential neighborhood that is fine with (insert here) being located there.

is pretty much the textbook definition of "NIMBY"

Stephen, don't think you are quite getting the original assertion. Of course not wanting something in your back yard fits the literal definition of a NIMBY, however I specifically said in the "pejorative sense" exactly for that reason. You can't negatively call someone a NIMBY, if it is something you yourself, or virtually anyone would oppose in their neighborhood. 

Would you call someone a NIMBY that doesn't want a nuclear reactor in their neighborhood too?

Interestingly, the nuclear reactor industry is the origin of the word NIMBY passing into popular usage.

Care to cite that because I can't see anything on the WWW...

Interestingly Wikipedia, lists nuclear reactors as NIABY (which I seriously thought I had coined myself), and I imagine homeless shelters would also fall into that category.

NIMBYism is usually used pejoratively when people are narrow minded on a development...Not wanting a homeless shelter in ones neighborhood, does not make one narrow minded. But if you feel that way, feel free to pejoratively label Springfielders as NIMBY's in this instance.

[Debbie Thompson]

Can we get back on track to a meaningful discussion?

[Miss Fixit]

More info about the "PLAN" 

According to the City, the day center should provide space, equipment and furnishings to accommodate:

• Reception area seating and laminated photo-membership ID processing

• Universal intake to access to full array of homeless services

• Office space ensuring security and confidentiality

• Restrooms, showers and storage lockers

• Clothing closet, washers and dryers

• Mailboxes and mailing address

• Telephones and community voice mail

• Computers with Internet connections

• Exercise and recreation area

• Outside recreation patio area

• Access to medical clinic

• Security

• Rotating service providers linking to other available services

Thank you Karen,  http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=537799

Really?  How can all of that be developed on a $500,000 budget? 

[CityLife]

Can we get back on track to a meaningful discussion?

It's actually quite meaningful. People who view/call Springfielders NIMBY's are trying to marginalize the argument that this site is not appropriate. Those points have now been made and the thread can move on...but it was in fact quite meaningful.

[strider]

News Flash:  the reality is that not everyone will ever consider any site in Jacksonville suitable for this day center. Unless of course it is far enough away from everything that they have to be bused there.   Then of course, how long before JSO has AK47's out to make sure all those terrible homeless get on those buses?  And what do you do when they return Home? Because they will.  There are many homeless in Springfield that have lived in the area much longer than most home owners have been here.

This day center must be downtown if it is to work.  And let's face it, Downtown NEEDS it to work. While I fully agree the Armory may not be the best choice, it is far from the worst choice.  It will not destroy Springfield any more than the Car Wash did or the current, well run services have. 

Only one way will change this situation for the better.  Get behind the idea of a day center, get all the facts, as 02roadking has started to do , gather facts from other cities and present those facts with the offer of your help in making sure the day center does what we need it to do.  Prove with facts, not fears, that the Armory is not the best of the options and prove to them what downtown location is. And if it is a more expensive option than their first choice, you need to have the way to get the funding for the difference.

Simply help them rather than continue to hinder them.

[CityLife]

Can we get back on track to a meaningful discussion?

It's actually quite meaningful. People who view/call Springfielders NIMBY's are trying to marginalize the argument that this site is not appropriate. Those points have now been made and the thread can move on...but it was in fact quite meaningful.

calm down francis.

getting shrill about an imaginary attack on spring fielders doesn't really make up for being so excruciatingly wrong in matters of etymology or google expertise.

The debate wasn't over google expertise or the origin of the term, which I'm happy to admit to being wrong to, but nothing changes the fact that its wrong to pejoratively call people NIMBY's, if it is in fact an issue everyone, everywhere would have a problem with in their neighborhood

And Strider, you lost me (and probably a lot of others) with the claim that the center will have no worse effects on Springfield than a car wash. Which is a preposterous claim, only made more ridiculous by you calling for people to seek facts. Perhaps you could help by providing some facts for your unsubstantiated claim that homeless centers have the same effect on neighborhoods as car washes.

[CityLife]

News Flash:  the reality is that not everyone will ever consider any site in Jacksonville suitable for this day center. Unless of course it is far enough away from everything that they have to be bused there.   Then of course, how long before JSO has AK47's out to make sure all those terrible homeless get on those buses?  And what do you do when they return Home? Because they will.  There are many homeless in Springfield that have lived in the area much longer than most home owners have been here.

This day center must be downtown if it is to work.  And let's face it, Downtown NEEDS it to work. While I fully agree the Armory may not be the best choice, it is far from the worst choice.  It will not destroy Springfield any more than the Car Wash did or the current, well run services have. 

Only one way will change this situation for the better.  Get behind the idea of a day center, get all the facts, as 02roadking has started to do , gather facts from other cities and present those facts with the offer of your help in making sure the day center does what we need it to do.  Prove with facts, not fears, that the Armory is not the best of the options and prove to them what downtown location is. And if it is a more expensive option than their first choice, you need to have the way to get the funding for the difference.

Simply help them rather than continue to hinder them.

[ronchamblin]

I missed the meeting yesterday at city hall covering certain aspects of Hemming Park.  Denise Lee, Don Redman etc held it, and invited me and others.  I could not attend.

Today, someone from the media visited the bookstore, informed me that a decision had been made to introduce legislation to ban games such as cards and dominoes, stating also that the decision had been made to remove the remainder of the tables and chairs.

Not being aware of the decisions, I didn't have much time to think about my answers.  He asked for my opinion, upon which I stated that I was disappointed at the two decisions.  I said that they are sterilizing the park, making it unusable by all people, and that the people there now will simply stand and sit on the ground, and perhaps even bring their own fold-up tables. 

In any case, it looks like the move is to attempt these actions to determine if the "campers" will avoid the park.  It will be interesting to see the outcome, to see where these people will go. 

I suggested that the decisions for the park would make more sense if there was a place for these people to go, such as the new facility planned by the mayor.

We will see.
 

[strider]

City Life, the comparison between the car wash and the homeless day center is not that potential impacts, both good and bad, are the same, but rather the effect it has on the people who immediately grab the torches and pitchforks because (fill in the blank here) will destroy Springfield or Riverside or Downtown).  Be it a car wash, a new convenience store, a homeless shelter or what have you, that type of response hurts the community much more the the actual car wash or homeless day center ever will.  The rhetoric is many times worse than the actual truth.  Case in point, the car wash has not destroyed Springfield, has it?  And, don't get me wrong, Springfield is not alone in this type of response, it is just not very productive and can cause more issues than it will ever fix.

Posting that hundreds of homeless will roam the street of Springfield, that the social services turned Springfield into a slum to start with, that your children will be less safe and that, well the list can be endless , does no one any good.  It is seldom true nor fact based but it is fear based and that is what is wrong.  Lose the fear and try to find good solutions and people, in this case, the Major's office, may listen.  Show up with torches and pitch forks and they will not in this case as they have no incentive to.  They do not need the public's permission to do this.

And now, making card playing illegal in the park?  Are the buses and AK47's that far behind?

Meanwhile, what about trying to find those solutions rather than argue whether you are NIMBY or not?

[Debbie Thompson]

This thread is getting contentious.  Perhaps we could discuss alternate solutions instead.  For example, the Forsyth Street location by Salvation Army is near other homeless services on the west side of the CBD, and not near a residential neighborhood.  It would seem to be a good solution.

[If_I_Loved_you]

This thread is getting contentious.  Perhaps we could discuss alternate solutions instead.  For example, the Forsyth Street location by Salvation Army is near other homeless services on the west side of the CBD, and not near a residential neighborhood.  It would seem to be a good solution.

"Not in my back yard"

[CityLife]

Meanwhile, what about trying to find those solutions rather than argue whether you are NIMBY or not?

Lets see in this thread alone, I've mentioned the need to centralize homeless services, ideally away from DT and provided a quick explanation why (its a view many hold btw, including Audrey Moran), I posed a list of questions/implications that the city needs to factor in the decision making process, I pointed out that the Mayor has someone who is completely under qualified leading this process, I pointed out that the city needs to do a fiscal impact analysis, cost benefit analysis, or Multi-Goal Analysis (which are all real things that big boy cities and professionals use), I've pointed out that the Mayor's office needs to make this an inclusive process and factor in the opinions of stakeholders, pointed out the very real implications for the Hogan's Creek Greenway, and that it is foolish to put homeless services next to a brand new children's playground.

If the city hired an outside consultant to help them with this process, the consultant would list virtually everything above (save the centralized homeless services question) for the decision-making process.

What more can I do? Form a military Junta and storm City Hall? Inception Mayor Brown? Teach the Mayor's office how do Alternatives Analysis (which I will do btw)? When the dust settles I will be cordially reaching out to Chris Hand and the Mayor's Office, but other than that, there's really not much we can do as citizens here, as it has not been an inclusive process.

As to the rest of your post...I'll politely and respectfully decline response, as this thread has had enough worthless debate...which Debbie was actually correct about earlier. I should have known better than to get into a meaningless debate about semantics.

[If_I_Loved_you]

Meanwhile, what about trying to find those solutions rather than argue whether you are NIMBY or not?

Lets see in this thread alone, I've mentioned the need to centralize homeless services, ideally away from DT and provided a quick explanation why (its a view many hold btw, including Audrey Moran), I posed a list of questions/implications that the city needs to factor in the decision making process, I pointed out that the Mayor has someone who is completely under qualified leading this process, I pointed out that the city needs to do a fiscal impact analysis, cost benefit analysis, or Multi-Goal Analysis (which are all real things that big boy cities and professionals use), I've pointed out that the Mayor's office needs to make this an inclusive process and factor in the opinions of stakeholders, pointed out the very real implications for the Hogan's Creek Greenway, and that it is foolish to put homeless services next to a brand new children's playground.

If the city hired an outside consultant to help them with this process, the consultant would list virtually everything above (save the centralized homeless services question) for the decision-making process.

What more can I do? Form a military Junta and storm City Hall? Inception Mayor Brown? Teach the Mayor's office how do Alternatives Analysis (which I will do btw)? When the dust settles I will be cordially reaching out to Chris Hand and the Mayor's Office, but other than that, there's really not much we can do as citizens here, as it has not been an inclusive process.

As to the rest of your post...I'll politely and respectfully decline response, as this thread has had enough worthless debate...which Debbie was actually correct about earlier. I should have known better than to get into a meaningless debate about semantics.

I don't need to slap "Stephen Dare" on the back but when it comes to Debate he has you beat by far. City Life good luck on helping find a place for the Homeless Center and if it's not the Old Armory Building. I truly hope we care more about the people that need the help and not from all of the people even me that has said "not in my back yard."

[Debbie Thompson]

Agree, City Life.  These are the same old troublemakers dragging out the same old crud and trying to start flame wars.  I'm ignoring the crud henceforth.  Le's gets productive about discussing a solution that will meet the needs of BOTH the homeless and the historic neighborhood of Springfield.  There are other solutions available, and that's what we need to talk about.

Strider, Tacalache, Lake, and others with real ideas, suggest you do the same.  Ignore those just trying to stir up trouble.  Don't even respond to the crud.  Skip over it.  Don't even read it.  Let's come up with suggestions that will work for everyone.