The reports have rolled in, and it sounds to us as if the meeting last night was fairly well managed. The crowd in attendance at the Planning and Zoning public hearing last night numbered around 350, with about 50 individual speakers.
We're also hearing that speakers were almost evenly divided in their feelings about restrictions on homeless shelters in town, with a very slight -- maybe by one speaker -- edge going to the white shirts in the crowd.
Among the thinking members of the audience, the Planning and Zoning Commission was asked, sometimes repeatedly, to consider the following regulations and changes in the text amendment for homeless shelters:
1. -- Insert "cold weather" before the phrase "temporary overnight shelter"; limiting operation from October through April, with days of operation not to exceed 31.
2. -- Include schools in the exclusion list of locations where shelters may operate.
3. -- Do not allow shelters in the R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts.
4. -- Change the phrase "owner or operator" to read "and" so that an operator of a shelter must apply for a special use permit and be subject to annual review and approval by the City Council.
5. -- Limit the number of shelters that can operate within any single ward.
6. -- Do not allow shelters to operate within 500 ft. of schools.
7. -- Require fingerprint background checks for all homeless shelter users.
8. -- Require a proper legal linkage agreement between a shelter operator and the city.
9. -- Require metal detectors be installed at shelter entrances; similarly, require wanding searches for shelter "guests".
10. -- Require security to be present on premesis.
11. -- Separate men from women and children within shelters.
12. -- Provide proper shower and bathing facilities within shelters.
Those seem like reasonable requests to us!
We are a little concerned by reports that most speakers were chock full of opinion but provided very little source material and "evidence" when testifying at this public hearing. Though we understand that a lot of this government procedural stuff is new to a lot of people, and there's always a learning curve to be managed.
The Planning and Zoning Commission decided to close the public hearing portion of the meeting at about 9:45 PM, then they voted to continue the rest of their meeting (their discussion) until September 8th. Should the Planning and Zoning Commission choose to reopen the public hearing on Sept. 8 or another future date, we strongly suggest to those interested in the issue to do their homework and submit "evidentiary" materials to the commission.
And finally, we are told the various preacher creatures still do not understand the United States Constitution, and what is meant by separation of church and state in the first amendment. No big surprise there.
The PRU Crew is looking forward to reading the transcripts and minutes of this meeting, and future meetings on this issue, for the entertainment value alone!
August 26, 2008
Can I Get A Witness! (Freewheeling)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
It mostly was a well-run meeting, the moderator is to be commended over all. It was not a mockery like the thing in the church basement, and not an interminable, thinly manipulated affair like the one Frimark presided over last time.
Once again, PADS did not deign to grace the hardworking and late-hour-meeting attending masses with their presence. Secrecy begets suspicion - where are these people? So much to hide.
The white shirts were present in numbers, but at least half are not even from PR and almost all are senior citizens.
The number of clergy people who got up to speak outnumbered any other single demographic -- more tedious pulpit rhetoric that had no place in last night's discussion and resonated in its emptiness. If the meeting failed at all, it was because the proceedings were not steered away from every holy plea. If it had been, the commission could have proceeded to a more timely conclusion.
P&Z commission and the city council have to see this for what it really is - NOT a religious issue; religion has no place in the analysis. This is business, and this is government regulation of business. Every single one of our jobs is subjected to it, this should be no different.
If PR even starts to open the door for PADS to get into a church school, both the religious institution and the city need seriously consider the forthcoming federal challenge based on PADS' funding and business practices. If the city council does not regulate this thing away from the children, it's over with the pissing matches with the 'good' reverends; let the 7th circuit put the clergy back in its place -- church, not village hall.
Come on, city council, this is your moment to shine. We are all pulling for you.
well-said anonymous @ 1:57pm.
I am almost amused if this wasn't so pathetic. People wearing white shirts because they are "told" to. Getting up at the meeting and not stating FACTS just stating that it's the "right thing to do."
Think for yourselves.
What an enlightening experience it will be.
As for the city council stepping up? uh...I think there is only one who knows how to stand on his own.
I think we have all heard more than enough from the Pro-people. last night was a perfect example of how little substance comes from that mind set. All fluff no fact, opinions galore though. The truth is, they know that the city is perfectly within their rights require the special use and to licence the "operator" affectionatly know and PADS. The fact that PADS as been silent and invisable as anon 1:57 mentioned and has been noticed as of late, since proceedures and regulations started it's dicussion in fact is curios to say the least. I believe the general consencus on that is, hmmmmmm I wonder why?
With that said, the meeting on a whole was well run, and there is a belief that this commission will think hard and long with careful consideration before sending it to city council. Let's give the Planning and Zoning crew a hand, for the task that is before them is going to be a difficult one.
there's nothing "difficult" about making sound, common sense rules for a pads shelter - if your goal is to do the right thing and not just what might be the popular thing with one group or another.
you adopt many/most/all of the suggestions pru printed because they all enhance safety, security, order and cleanliness - all of which should be expected by any homeless person getting free accommodations for the night in a "communal" setting.
Who runs PRU anyway?
Must be demons since PRU in one of the "Evil Blogs", according to Howard Frimark.
Ha!!!
Evil?
You made me choke on my coffee.
There is no one who defines pure evil more than Howard Frimark.
For him to even use the word evil, when referring to anyone other than himself, is mind-boggling.
As to the clergy members’ grasp of the United States Constitution, if they in fact do not understand the First Amendment, and by extension the doctrine of separation of church and state, they would not be in the minority. The amendment was drafted more to protect the church from the state rather than the converse. To wit, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The phrase “separation of church and state” actually appears nowhere in the Constitution.
One may suppose that the founders were influenced, negatively, by European state religions and their persecution of dissenters. Ergo, there would be no Church of the United States and the Federal government would be a secular one. Having said that, the First Amendment protects all churches while performing what they are called to do.
For Christian churches, the overarching direction is The Great Commission in Matthew 28: “18Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age’."
As to the “obey everything I have commanded you” part, there is quite a body of direction in the New Testament and, because Jesus often taught using parables, the meaning is not clear to everyone. One example is found in Matthew 25:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Moreover, the subsequent verses promise eternal punishment for those who do not follow the lessons of this parable. Therefore, it is truly an imperative that Christians provide food, drink, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, etc. to those in need.
All of this is to say, if the “preacher creatures” (as they were labeled) actually understood the United State Constitution, they might argue that the state was interfering with what the First Amendment provides them protection. Perhaps it is best that this inconvenient truth is not revealed.
Normally we don't clear bullshit comments, but yours was so entertaining we decided to make an exception.
Got any legal cites you want to offer? No, Matthew doesn't count; neither do Mark, Luke or John.
Hey Bob, anytime anyone starts throwing around two thousand year old hearsay as fact. It’s time to change the channel.
sheesh! what a post!
take your meds...
Is Bob code for PRMA?
Totally off topic--can anybody help get that sink hole fixed in the parking lot of the Dee Rd train station?
I know the public works folks are busy, but the section has been blocked off for almost a month now with one of those orange things with the flashing light (oh, I know I sound intelligent, but I don't know what that is called!)
Thank you.
At the P&R meeting a speaker mentioned that one of PADS managers has a homeless brother - does anyone have details on that? It must be true because speakers were under oath.
Bob,
Were you ever a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia?
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I'm all for a little good intentions. Those stated in Matthew are quite nice. Or, if you're of a certain age and if you prefer a more succinct statement, how about Bill & Ted's, "be excellent to each other." Either works for me. Shame we so often fail to live up to the guidance set forth in Matthew… or even in Bill & Ted.
That said, the folks advocating the shelter keep slipping off the tracks. The statement above, "the First Amendment protects all churches while performing what they are called to do" is just the latest example. The "while performing what they are called to do" is so ambiguous as to be without meaning. What is "performing"? What constitues "called to do"?
"Performing" is subject to time and place restrictions. The location of a church is subject to zoning restrictions. Occupancy is governed by the fire code, access requirements, etc.
"What it is called to do", what I take to mean to be the services themselves are, in addition to the requirements above, also subject to various laws. Yes, worship itself is subject to law. We've all heard about native American churches who have had to go to court to use peyote in their services. Some have won, some have lost. Animal sacrifice is not allowed. The list goes on.
In fact, what is a "church"? It is a place of worship. Is a shelter a place of worship? The answer in the law is unambiguous. No, it is not.
The point is, some have this ill-(in)formed idea that a church can do whatever it wants. It cannot. In fact, churches are regulated to the same extent as any other institution.
"Be excellent to each other," regardless of whomever you wish to quote to convey the idea.
“Abraham Lincoln: Fourscore and... [looks at his pocket watch] seven minutes ago... we, your forefathers, were brought forth upon a most excellent adventure conceived by our new friends, Bill... and Ted. These two great gentlemen are dedicated to a proposition which was true in my time, just as it's true today. Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!”
Charles, I do not discount the value of these words to live by. Being excellent to each other, or even just being civil, would make life around here a bit more pleasant.
I do not believe that the First Amendment provides churches with a carte blanche license to do anything and have it protected. What the church is called to do is pretty much spelled out in the manual. I suspect that the founding fathers did not have bingo games and rummage sales in mind when drafting the Constitution. It’s probably safe to say that incorporating peyote buttons and ganja into worship were also not top of mind.
However, providing sustenance, shelter, solace, etc to the needy is supposed to be one of the core competencies of a Christian church. It’s what we do (or at least what we are instructed to do).
Having said that, the “church” is not the physical plant, but rather the people. The Body of Christ is not a building. While Christians are directed to serve those in need, I’m unaware of any instruction to convert the buildings entrusted to them by God into homeless shelters. My point is that serving the needy is entirely in concert with the mission of the church and thus protected. A more tenuous argument to make is the First Amendment protection of the usage of church-owned buildings to accomplish this mission.
At any rate, Charles, I appreciate your thoughtful contribution to the discourse.
I tried to post a comment on an earlier post about PADS but it never got published. Does 'PRU' only post comments that it aggrees with? Or is this a real blog open to real discussions?
kevin,
The only comment we have from you in our file was posted under 'Morelleon' 4 days ago. We have not rejected any of your comments. Maybe you got lost navigating your way around the site, and if you bother to read thoroughly and carefully you already know we do not post only comments we agree with. However, we do reserve the right to reject comments on our blog that do not meet our parameters, or that our PRU.ADMIN finds objectionable.
Speaking about PADS....has anyone heard about the denial to accept SP kids at MSW ?
Yes - father ding bat...is refusing the children from SP because he's upset at the flock of his being thinned out....and moving to SP.
Yet - those families who don't want to stick around to greet the first felon into the school yard....are seeking transfers to MSW.
Now..the plot gets thicker here...is it true that there is some unlawful sexual contact going on involving male to male at MSW?
Better check up on this...before you push the kids over there too.
Hey ,,,lets ask Rosemary M. what "PUMA" stands for!!
Ok!
Anon@7:19 --
Sexual contact is not "unlawful" when it happens between consenting adults, regardless of gender.
If what you are saying is happening between people who do not meet the condition of being consenting adults then we strongly urge you to file a police report.
Post a Comment