[Peace-discuss] NG article today on Safe Haven

Jenifer Cartwright jencart13 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 1 12:06:59 CDT 2009


I think you understand my point, Laurie, so let's agree to disagree re its merits. Thanks.
 --Jenifer 

--- On Sat, 8/1/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:


From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] NG article today on Safe Haven
To: "'Jenifer Cartwright'" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>, "'Karen Medina'" <kmedina67 at gmail.com>, "'Peace-discuss List'" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Saturday, August 1, 2009, 10:59 AM








> ALL groups make and enforce THEIR OWN various and special rules -- I'm talking about internal structure, not something imposed from without.
 
Yes all groups make and enforce THEIR OWN internal rules and I know what you are talking about; BUT they typically do not make and enforce rules governing behavior beyond their organization and internal workings (i.e., they do not make rules governing how their members are to dress, speak, interact with others outside of the organization, on the street, or with non-members of the organization) nor beyond what they feel they can practically enforce and control in ways the all their members will accept and consent to.  Those organizations that do attempt to dictate rules of conduct beyond their organizational jurisdiction or internal operations  or enforce rules that control members behavior beyond that which is acceptable to all the members and with which all the members are willing to voluntarily comply with outside of the organization and its activities are usually known as totalitarian organizations or cults (sometimes as religious fundamentalists
 and extreme conformists) and often find that their continued existence is fragile and that their members in practice ignore the rules when acting outside the community or organization  with little concern for the organizational sanctions.
 
Neighborhood associations can tell you whether you can put up a fence or not but only (a) if you belong to the association and (b) the property in question is in that associations jurisdiction.  They cannot force people to belong to the association or people who do not belong to follow their rules; nor can they tell people who may be members of the association and live in the neighborhood if they can put up a fence on a property that they might own in another neighborhood.  If they did try to do so, I doubt if they would be effective in gaining compliance.  The same is true of condo associations.  They make rules that govern activities only within the condo or on its premises; they do not make rules governing behavior off the condo premises.  Nor can they expect to effectively enforce any such rules with respect to condo members conduct off premises by applying sanctions to them while on premises or with respect to their membership in the
 association once they have be accepted as members.
 
>I don't know whether anyone's complaining about my neighbors' drinking and drugging on others' property... but they weren't at a Ch City Council >meeting requesting a zoning change (or anything else).
 
So now the criteria governing fairness and due process, privacy and civil rights , etc. are dependent on if the person who is being complained about goes to City Council requesting some action by their governmental body.  If they do not go, they have no right or authority to claim or avail themselves of such things.  Besides, your statement above is ambiguous, I am assuming you are referring to the members of Safe Haven asking for a zoning change and not the neighbors.  Your argument here is a red herring. 
 
>My point was that Tent City residents aren't permitted to drink "at home," and they probably aren't drinking in bars or restaurants (limited funds)... so >the neighbors might figure that IF they're drinking or drugging, they're doing it on somebody's else's property. 
 
> Sooooo, a good way to scotch neighborhood complaints would be for Tent City to have a no drinking/drugging policy in effect at all times. Otherwise, the "one block radius rule" makes it look like TC sanctions -- even promotes -- their residents' drinking and drugging on somebody else's property. 
 
 
But they have no evidence that this is actually the case and that it is happening or would happen on their property.  This argument is based on pure conjecture and fear which will not go away if the rule said 1 block or 100 miles.  Those making this argument out of speculation and fear would not accept or believe it if the policy was a prohibition that would be in effect at all time and all places.  What is taking place is a pre-emptive action and not remedial action in response to an actually existing problem.  If it were the case of the neighbors wanting to prevent Afro-Americans, Asians, or Jews from moving into the neighborhood because they might drink, drug, have wild loud parties, not maintain their property, have too many visitors, wear funny clothing, etc., we would call it discrimination and racism, which we would condemn.  We would not tell the discriminated upon that they should develop universal rules against members of their race,
 religion, or ethnic group engaging in certain behaviors at any time or in any place  in the neighborhood or outside the neighborhood.
 
However, even if the Safe Haven community were to try and accommodate the future neighbors by adopting such policies and rules, I am sure that the neighbors would find some other reason to complain or to blame the behavior of non-members of the Safe Haven community one the community by arguing that if the Safe Haven community did not exist in the neighborhood these offending non-members would not be in the neighborhhod and that they are only there because the tent community is their.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From: Jenifer Cartwright [mailto:jencart13 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 12:05 AM
To: 'Karen Medina'; 'Peace-discuss List'; LAURIE SOLOMON
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] NG article today on Safe Haven
 





ALL groups make and enforce THEIR OWN various and special rules -- I'm talking about internal structure, not something imposed from without. 

 

Examples: neighborhood associations (yes,, even in Champaign) that tell you whether you can put up a fence, fer crissakes; condo associations that tell you what color curtains you can hang. 

 

There are written and unwritten rules for ALL groups -- ridiculous to think otherwise. And groups that deal w/ communal living (especially) MUST make and enforce their own rules... and members either follow them or take the consequences.

 

I don't know whether anyone's complaining about my neighbors' drinking and drugging on others' property... but they weren't at a Ch City Council meeting requesting a zoning change (or anything else).

 

My point was that Tent City residents aren't permitted to drink "at home," and they probably aren't drinking in bars or restaurants (limited funds)... so the neighbors might figure that IF they're drinking or drugging, they're doing it on somebody's else's property. 

 

Sooooo, a good way to scotch neighborhood complaints would be for Tent City to have a no drinking/drugging policy in effect at all times. Otherwise, the "one block radius rule" makes it look like TC sanctions -- even promotes -- their residents' drinking and drugging on somebody else's property. 

 

As I said, just something to think about.

 --Jenifer

--- On Fri, 7/31/09, LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET> wrote:


From: LAURIE SOLOMON <LAURIE at ADVANCENET.NET>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] NG article today on Safe Haven
To: "'Karen Medina'" <kmedina67 at gmail.com>, "'Peace-discuss List'" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Date: Friday, July 31, 2009, 1:50 PM

Nice reply Karen.  However, aside from your reply, it is a practical matter
of authority and effectiveness of implementing the policy as well the
ability to assess and fairly evaluate gossip and data about drug or alcohol
use by a resident who may be accused of using in some other town or
jurisdiction or who may not be in violation of any law when using the drugs
(i.e. prescription drugs or over the counter drugs or moderate social
drinking at a special occasion or during their free time) by someone who is
seeking to cause trouble for either the accused or the Safe Haven community..
It is much easier and more practical to investigate and evaluate incidents
that take place within a local one block radius. If the persons use or abuse
of these items in a more distant location creates a social problem, then it
is up to the local law enforcement authorities to deal with that problem
since it effects that non-local community or the local City jurisdiction at
large and is not restricted to a more intimate neighborhood problem.

Furthermore, why not require all organizations and institutions to institute
policies that sanction their members for drug use, alcohol use, marital
infidelity, sacrilegious practices, poor property management practices,
speeding or traffic violations, or being any sort of nuisance to anyone else
at any time or in any place?

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Medina
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:58 AM
To: Peace-discuss List
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NG article today on Safe Haven

Do your neighbors NOT use drugs or alcohol?
-karen medina

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Jenifer Cartwright<jencart13 at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Neighbors' complaints of drug and alcohol use by Tent Community members
were
> denied by those at last week's CCC meeting. However, one thing that struck
> me as a negative was the no drinking and drugging w/in a one-block radius
> policy of the Tent Community. A more reassuring policy would be no drug or
> alcohol use while living in the TC, period. The current policy suggests
that
> alcohol or drug use is okay so long as it's kept at least one block away
> from the TC.
> Just a tho't.
>  --Jenifer
>
> --- On Sun, 7/19/09, Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] NG article today on Safe Haven
> To: "Peace-discuss List" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:15 PM
>
> I know several people in AWARE don't take the NG. But are interested
> in the Safe Haven situation...
>
> News-Gazette article this morning:
> Tent city's organizers confident they'll find a new home
> By Mike Monson
> Sunday July 19, 2009
>
> CHAMPAIGN – They haven't found a new home yet, but the organizers
> behind the Safe Haven Tent Community still have big future plans that
> go way beyond pitching several tents in a backyard.
>
> The several-week-old tent community for the homeless was established
> several weeks ago in the back yard of the Catholic Worker House, 317
> S. Randolph St., C. The city of Champaign says the encampment of eight
> to 10 homeless people is in violation of the city's zoning ordinance.
> And the Catholic Worker House, which shuts down for the month of
> August, has informed the residents that they must be out by July 31.
>
> But Abby Harmon, one of the organizers behind the tent community, says
> she is confident they'll find a new home.
>
> "We've sent out letters to 150 churches in Champaign, Urbana and
> Rantoul requesting refuge while we work with the city," she said.
>
> Harmon and fellow organizers Michael Parkinson and Jesse Masengale
> have a vision for Safe Haven that they're now planning to lay out to
> skeptical city officials.
>
> They've asked the city to lease an unspecified vacant city lot to Safe
> Haven to allow the homeless community to relocate at a more suitable
> site.
>
> If they can get a city lot and the city council agrees to revise its
> zoning ordinance, Safe Haven organizers say they will work to:
>
> – Eventually ditch the tents and install semi-permanent housing with
> heat to help homeless residents survive the winter.
>
> – Expand Safe Haven's capacity up to 25 people.
>
> – Create communal bathroom and kitchen facilities with electricity,
> and even add gardens where homeless people can grow their own food.
>
> "The idea of a tent city seems very radical at first blush, but when
> you begin to dig into the ideas, you understand it's just a different
> model for providing services to the homeless," said Harmon, a graduate
> student in landscape architecture at the University of Illinois.
>
> "It's a model that is consumer-driven, cost-effective and successful
> at transitioning people off the streets and into permanent housing,"
> she said.
>
> Harmon said she and former Urbana alderwoman Danielle Chynoweth will
> meet Saturday with council members Deborah Frank Feinen and Karen
> Foster to explain the group's vision. She said paperwork is being
> prepared to create a not-for-profit organization, to be called Safe
> Haven Inc., that would act as a service provider to the people living
> in the community.
>
> Safe Haven would likely be governed by a village council made up of
> residents and organizers, Harmon said.
>
> But Foster and Feinen remain skeptical.
>
> Foster said she thinks Champaign officials need to check with cities
> that have hosted tent communities.
>
> "I think we're just getting one side," she said.
>
> Feinen said she's reluctant to comment before the meeting, but she
> noted that "there are lots of social service needs in the city."
>
> "Prioritizing those needs and affording them, after we cut our budget
> by $6 million, is something the city council will have to struggle
> with," she said.
>
> Semi-permanent housing for the homeless has been tried, and worked, in
> a number of cities, according to Harmon.
>
> A former homeless community in Los Angeles, called Dome Village, used
> small domes, with 314 square feet of living space, to house residents.
> Each dome housed two unrelated adults or small families. Dome Village
> had about 20 domes on one and one-third acres, before it closed in
> October 2006 after 13 years.
>
> Another possibility for semi-permanent housing is a "tiny house"
> developed by the Emily Carr Design College in Vancouver, Canada, that
> provides 64 square feet of living space and costs about $1,500, Harmon
> said.
>
> Parkinson, also a Safe Haven organizer, said he thinks the concept
> will work. He's a 2009 UI graduate with a bachelor's degree in urban
> and regional planning.
>
> "Everything we're working on seems very feasible both in the short and
> long term," he said. "There's nothing too pie in the sky to this idea.
> It's worked before and it's worked well."
>
> A Safe Haven village would differ significantly from the TIMES Center,
> a transitional living facility for homeless adult men located at 70 E.
> Washington St., C, according to Harmon.
>
> The TIMES Center has 70 beds for homeless single men and currently has
> about 10 vacant beds, according to TIMES Center Supervisor Jason
> Greenly.
>
> "The TIMES Center is a transitional living center; you have to come
> into a program," Harmon said. "It's very structured and that sort of
> structure doesn't work for everybody."
>
> Four current residents of Safe Haven have been banned from the TIMES
> Center for periods varying from 90 days to one year due to rules
> violations, she said. Safe Haven would rely more on "a peer support
> network" instead of case management to transition residents into
> permanent housing.
>
> The TIMES Center's Greenly said his facility does develop a service
> plan with goals for each resident, with "all our goals focusing on not
> being homeless."
>
> "It's fair to say people may not want to work within the shelter
> system," he said. "You've got to play ball."
>
> Safe Haven organizers also say they want the community to be based in
> Champaign, despite the fact that Urbana, with a more liberal city
> council and mayor, might be more politically receptive.
>
> "The people living in the tent community have resided in Champaign,"
> Harmon said. "They call Champaign home, and we'd like for them to
> continue to call Champaign home."
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
 


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090801/d9e92518/attachment.html


More information about the Peace-discuss mailing list