First -- Council Meeting Highlights!
1. Under agenda item: Citizens Wishing To Address The City Council On A Non-Agenda Item.
Several Saint Paul of the Cross parents addressed the Council and related their concerns and dismay that a PADS shelter has been proposed for their school gym. Several stressed their concerns over issues of health and hygiene.
We are pleased to learn that some brave souls are willing to stand up and be counted on this public policy matter, even if it earns for them the nasty wrath of their fellow "christians." We hope they will continue to be brave enough to stand up and be counted when their parish pastor tells them, "talk to the hand."
The PRU Crew is fairly disgusted with this entire process. We understand why these parents and others were at the Council meeting to address our elected officials, and we would encourage them to continue to do so. But we can't help but feel that these parents and others were given no other choice of a forum in which to voice their concerns; their pastor announced the plan the day before school was dismissed for the summer, then he high-tailed his butt out of town.
2. Under agenda item: Standing Committees
-- Procedures and Regulations Committee
The PRU Crew is very pleased to learn that the Council decided not to give Mayor Howard carte blanche power over the Council committee appointment process.
The 2nd Ward's Lord of the Manor, Rich DiPietro, offered an amendment to the new ordinance that will require the "consent" of the City Council in approving the Mayor's committee appointments. The vote was 4 to 3, with Aldermen Schmidt (1st), DiPietro (2nd), Bach (3rd) and Wsol (7th) voting to require City Council consent, while Aldermen Allegretti (4th), Ryan (5th) and Carey (6th) voted to continue being Mayoral lapdogs.
-- Public Works Committee
In what the PRU Crew considers to be the wisest path of action, the Council did not approve the adoption of a no-bid contract for the Source Capture System at the Public Works Service Center.
While this does mean that our city employees will have to wait even longer to see the air quality at the Public Works Service Center improved, something the PRU Crew has been watching and pushing to see done, it should also ensure that the scope of the work and any system put in place is detailed. And the bid process is also supposed to ensure that taxpayers get the best rate possible for the job.
Second -- A Comment in the Spotlight!
We asked for and we received the following response on our Morrelleon post. We feel that the issues raised in this comment are probably not too dissimilar to the sentiments held by a lot of Park Ridgians. We disagree with much of what this poster has concluded on some of the issues, but we thought it was well stated and considered.
June 17, 2008 8:28 AM - Anonymous said...
PRU:
Apologizes in advance for the length of this post.
My concerns are no different then the concerns many have posted here. I was responding to a comment by Mike about “more homeless people in certain places”. Is this going to dramatically increase the traffic and make up of the current homeless population? Is this population going to adversely affect businesses in PR? Are there going to be safety and security issues (children)? How will police handle these? Will there be attempts for future shelters and funding (tip of the iceberg)? Is going to the library with my daughter going to become a dramatically different event? If I let it, my mind can race to various scenarios I have read about from members of other communities who have shelters –various bodily secretions in the park, pedophiles (you know the drill). While some of my concerns may turn out to be wrong and or fear based, I feel they are reasonable. After all, to some degree I am fighting instinct. There is an innate part of me that thinks about me and protecting my family first.
The second point you asked about was simply that I see some of the arguments used to support a conclusion of no PADS shelter fail to address what I see as the real issue. Some have said that they would only want a shelter that services those that are from Park Ridge. By silly, I meant that it avoided the real issues (if that was the wrong choice of words I am sorry). There are valuable non-profits who service both people from PR and neighboring towns that people in the community support. Many of these have been here for awhile and there have been no major issues or backlash. They just target a narrower segment of the homeless community and therefore there is less perceived risk to the community. Another example was the whole location/St. Mary's issue. Some people actually thought that this was going to change people’s opinions. I am sure that those who live next to St. Mary’s were happy about this but it did not address the issue of bringing additional risk to the community.
Another example is the argument about PADS success rate. I am not a doctor and I have not written a thesis on homelessness in America, but my gut tells me that the reason their success rate is low is that they choose to service those same people that many perceive as a risk to PR. I have said this in other posts and I will repeat it. Having had general experience seeing close relationships battle addiction issues, I can say that the percentage of people who achieve any long term “clean time” is very low. I will leave the mental health issue to those with more experience in the area, but my guess is the percentage issue is the same. As long as a shelter is open to the full range of homeless people, they will not reach some arbitrary acceptable percentage.
I have also heard arguments that PADS is not willing to take responsibility for those they service once they leave PADS (again about risk). We all know the answer to this. I am not a lawyer but I know that once they leave the shelter PADS cannot force them to go anywhere.
I have also heard the “enabling” argument – that somehow there is a major portion of the human race that has figured out they can play the system by being homeless. I guess this comes down to everyone’s individual gut feel. I have not seen any data that breaks down the homeless population into this category. I am sure there are people who play the system but I feel that the vast majority of homeless for a variety of reasons are in a place that I can in no way relate to. Put simply, for most homeless I do not believe this is a “lifestyle choice”. I cringe when I hear that!
Now we will hear about St. Paul’s and how could they locate this at a school. If PRMA moves it to another PR church we will hear from those neighbors. Why? Because, again, the real issue has not been addressed.
All these arguments have some validity but they also all avoid what I see as the real issue. When I look at the various positions against PADS in PR I ask two questions. Is it something that based on laws and peoples freedom can be changed? If it was changed would a shelter in PR be acceptable?
The answer to these questions for me is no. If there was a vote on PADS in PR I would vote no. Not because of servicing people outside of PR. Not because of an unacceptable transition percentage. Not because it was at St. Mary’s or now St Paul’s. Not because we are enabling people. Not because of the way PRMA and or PADS has handled this whole thing.
To me if you bring a shelter that services the entire gamete of the homeless community then there is risk. This is who PADS is. That does not mean they are evil people. That does not mean that these people are not worthy of help. What it does mean is I am not willing to take the risk.
I am sure there are people at PRMA and other “people of faith” in PR would tell me that this is the essence of the struggle. That I am supposed to face my fears and that ultimately our purpose is to help each other. I am trying but, as of this writing, I have failed.
That’s my story and I’m sticking with it!!
June 17, 2008
A Tuesday Two-fer!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
kudos to those in the community at St. Paul who are standing up and saying NO.
It feels like we are being abused by the powers that be, whether they are in the city council, the mayor's ofc or community leaders.
It's so important to question what they are doing on every level. It is our RIGHT as Americans.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those "go along to get along" residents who have handed total control of their churches to the pastor or minister are getting what they deserve. At least with government, you can vote the bums out every four years, and even politicians have a hard time telling us that they are on a mission from God.
It looks as if some aldermen might be waking up on the corrupting influence of absolute power too.
Anonymous @ 2:49,
We will see if all the aldermen are awake or just sleep walking...
The final reading of the ordinance for appointment powers will be at the next council meeting...and as I'm sure you know, passing an ordinance is usually done in two readings.
Anybody willing to bet the aldermen don't flip on their original votes...?
I'd be willing to bet Howard will be making use of either one or both of those city office phones of his, and "dialoging" with certain aldermen on the matter...
HOWARD: "YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR ... "
Alderman: I think I am confused
HOWARD: "YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND"
Oh wait, that was an earlier Council meeting!
I truely believe more Park Ridgians need to stand up against PADS! I have seen homeless people being dropped off Uptown by someone driving them here. With the price of gas, they should stay in their neighborhood. If they have a JOB??? why don't they live close to where they work, so that they can walk to work??? If they have a car, do they have auto insurance???? I highly doubt it. Will the police dept conduct a spot check for auto insurance to make sure our town is safe? If our children get hit by a homeless person's auto and they don't have insurance, do we just say Oh Well, that is life! The citizens of Park Ridge need to WAKE UP AND FIGHT FOR OUR SAFETY!!!!
I agree all citizens should strongly voice their positions on a PADS site in PR.
Related to the insurance issue. Illinois has a manadatory insurance law. It is currently enforced mostly via traffic stops for other violations when, along with other information, they ask for proof of insurance.
I know that in PR and the northwest burbs they do have police setup on occasion for random stops on the seat belt law as well as DUI. I would have no problem with the occasional dragnet for checks on proof of insurance.
If you are suggesting that homeless people who drive be targeted specifically, I am not sure how an officer would know this by seeing or following a car. Perhaps you are suggesting that if PADS does come to PR that police wait for people to exit the facility and if they get in a car pull them over? I would have to ask a lawyer if there were any issues with that.
Lastly, I think you would be shocked at the number of people who drive without insurance and yet are not homeless.
1 of the rather interesting part of this weeks and last weeks meeting is the lady who owns the lots on Courtland and the zoning error from long ago.
As for the person who wrote in saying how we don't want to risk what will or may happen, weel of course we don't. Why should we?
That's why I've suggested to just take care of any possible homeless people wee have instead of allowing a bunch of homeless people to come in and be a burden on the whole town and unless they're brought in and are being controlled by PADS offiicals those who aren't well off will cause trouble.
I don't assume everyone in that state is evil but
talk about a church out of control - msw is just that. when you cannot serve two masters - at once then you know there is something wrong.
How hypocritical these SPC familes are!
For years, I have listened to my neighbors and friends talk about how they "sacrifice" to send their kids to SPC, and expect to be lauded as a "better person" for it.(As opposed to those of us who send our kids to the terrific public schools in our area, yet use our spare time to remain involved & active at SPC church.) In fact, they have plenty of $$ and a few thousand $$ is not a "sacrifice" at all. It buys them the security of being surrounded by other relatively affluent, white people like themselves. They're happy to write checks for charities, but I see very few of them actually respond to the church bulletin's pleas for assistance at the OLA food pantry, clothing drives, and PADS shelter.
Their attitude is: I pay my tuition, that's my contribution to the church. No connection with the idea of hands-on service- it's all through the checkbook.
So this backlash against a simple ministry through our own social service group is completely consistent with their attitude. They'll pay $$ to keep the "untouchables" at bay.
You know who will be the ones volunteering at the new shelter -- it'll be us "public school" families who can connect with the real world and the church's mission/responsibility to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc.
Put your words into action, people! Let's make this work. Our community and our children will be richer for the experience.
Thos hypocritical SPC parents!
For years, I have listened to my neighbors and friends talk about how they "sacrifice" to send their kids to SPC, and expect to be lauded as a "better person" for it.(As opposed to those of us who send our kids to the terrific public schools in our area, yet use our spare time to remain involved & active at SPC church.) In fact, they have plenty of $$ and a few thousand $$ is not a "sacrifice" at all. It buys them the security of being surrounded by other relatively affluent, white people like themselves. They're happy to write checks for charities, but I see very few of them actually respond to the church bulletin's pleas for assistance at the OLA food pantry, clothing drives, and PADS shelter. Their attitude is: I pay my tuition, that's my contribution to the church. No connection with the idea of hands-on service- it's all through the checkbook.
So this backlash against a simple ministry through our own social service group is completely consistent with their attitude. They'll pay $$ to keep the "untouchables" at bay. You know who will be the ones volunteering at the new shelter -- it'll be us "public school" families who can connect with the real world and the church's mission/responsibility to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc.
Put your words into action, people! Let's make this work. Our community and our children will be richer for the experience.
Ah, Public school Pharisees, the best kind of Pharisees...
Inviting homeless persons into a school for young children presents a risk to the children. Wielding poverty or the gospels as some kind of weapon against those of us with little kids in the school who seek to keep them safe misses the point. Your oddly superior tone of doing what Jesus told you to misses the point.
SPC parents who are against PADS in our school are not talking about Jesus anymore than we are talking about phonics or math. We are talking about an activity that is fraught with safety and hygiene shortcomings into our little kids' school.
The fact is that it is not merely a potential of risk - police reports from other communities clearly and voluminously document the real threats that PADS carries.
It is you, Cathleen, who is the hypocrite. If you and your ilk were really doing all that much, why are there even a handful of homeless among us?
Post a Comment