Last night's City Council Committee Meeting of the Whole -- held to discuss the recommendations on homeless shelters from Planning and Zoning -- sounds to us as if it was a whole lot of nothing; 3 hours and 40 minutes of mostly rehashing old news.
Our faithful reporters tell us there were 56 speakers in all -- 30 who spoke in favor of adopting the Planning and Zoning recommendation on homeless shelters, and 26 who urged the City Council not to.
Mayor Howard called the meeting to order at shortly after 7:00 PM, then introduced acting Director of Community Development, Ms. Carrie Davis. Davis made a few remarks about the temporary overnight shelter process and then the City Attorney, Everett Hill spoke. Hill spoke of the reason for having to include an ordinance on homeless shelters in the zoning code, and that he believes the City Council should first determine what licensing standards are to be applied to homeless shelters before the text amendment is added to the zoning code.
Mayor Howard, before taking comments from the community, offered those in attendance a set of ground rules for the meeting; each speaker would be given 4 minutes, no clapping, booing, hissing. Our sources tell us, after the meeting ended, it seemed clear that the ground rules were for those Mayor Howard doesn't agree with, since he allowed speakers he did agree with to regularly talk past the 4 minute mark, and the PRMA contingent clapped and was otherwise audibly out of control a few times without Mayor Howard making much of an effort to quell their enthusiasm.
Speakers who were not in support of adopting the recommended zoning ordinance included the in-house attorney for the Archdiocese of Chicago, Maureen Murphy, who tried to stress that PADS is not a business and that she hopes people "will trust the church to do this." The PRU Crew feels Ms. Murphy must have been living under a rock for the past decade, or she's one of the best "straight men" you'll ever meet.
Other anti-regulation speakers included three former aldermen who are notorious supporters of Mayor Howard, as well as four pastors from other local churches, including Fr. Carl Morello.
Fr. Morello's spoke about wanting to clarify why the 6 churches that do not fall within the proposed 500 ft. regulation for opening a homeless shelter didn't volunteer to open a homeless shelter, which he didn't really do according to the reports we've read. What Morello did say is that he "doesn't feel children will be put in jeopardy." Fr. Morello also pointedly noted that the email he sent to the City Council did not go out to parents and that he "has a right to express his personal opinion." He feels the email was forwarded, without his permission, to be used against him.
Clue for Fr. Carl Morello -- next time you want to express your "personal opinion" it may be best not to rely on your title and secretary to do that. We've seen a copy of the email. There is no doubt in our minds that you were communicating your "personal opinion" in your official capacity as pastor of Saint Paul of the Cross.
Sources also report that while there are some wildly entertaining characters on both sides of this debate, there are more on the "white shirt" side of the aisle -- one source tells us some woman was waxing poetic about cauldrons, and mixing the needy all together, and that some would sink to the bottom, but if you skim the top, those are the PADS clients.
But the most poignant moment of the evening is reported to us as being the mother who spoke about the dangers of believing "it can't happen here" or "it can't happen to you." She told the City Council of a program her child was involved in at Saint Paul of the Cross, through the Park Ridge Center of Concern. She spoke about how she intercepted letters between her child and an older man; the gist of her story being that the older man was a potential child molester attempting to lure her child to meet with him.
By that time it was around 10:40 PM, and the City Council moved to continue their portion of the discussion at their next council meeting.
September 30, 2008
A Whole Lot Of Mostly Nothing!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
CHILDREN BEING PROTECTED IS OUR FOCUS.
VIRTUS TRAINING AND THE ARCHDIOCESE REQUIRING IT FOR ALL VOLUNTEERS IS AN EXAMPLE. VOLUNTEES SHOULD NOT ALL BE PUT INTO THE GROUP OF SEXUAL PREDATORS. YET WE ALL MUST GO THROUGH THE TRAINING TO VOLUNTEER. WHY? JUST TO PREVENT THAT ONE IN A MILLION HORRIFYING THING FROM HAPPENING. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME. ONLY, I TRUELY BELIEVE THE ODDS ARE MUCH HIGHER WITH HOMELESS STAYING AT A SCHOOL GYM AND WANDERING AFTER THE SHELTER CLOSES THAT SOMETHING HORRIBLE COULD HAPPEN TO A CHILD.
FOR GODS SAKE JUST CONSIDER IT...
VIRTUS = SAFETY OF CHILDREN
NO HOMELESS SHELTER W/IN 500' OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN = SAFETY OF CHILDREN
FOUR MINUTES WE WERE ALL ENTITLED TO SPEAK.
PRO PADS GOT 4 + MINUTES.
US IN SUPPORT OF THEIR OWN P&Z COMMITTEE 7-2 VOTE (2 NOT STRICT ENOUGH) WERE CUT OFF IN SOME INSTANCES AT 1 MINUTE 30 SECONDS.
THEN WHEN ALL THE JOKES, LAUGHTER, HAND HOLDING CAME FROM THE PRO PADS PEOPLE SPEAKING TO THE CITIZENS NOT CITY COUNSEL, MR. MAYOR JOINED IN ON THE FUN
IF WE EVIL DOERS SPEAKING, EVEN FOR A MOMENT ADDRESSED THE AUDIENCE WE WERE PUT QUICKLY INTO PLACE BY WHAT LOOKED LIKE HATE AND CONTEMPT BY MR. MAYOR.
Anon@11:12&16 --
We like your message and we get what you are trying to emphasize, but just want to offer some netiquette advice -- ALL CAPS = CYBER YELLING. Maybe that's not what you want to come across as doing?
I second what Anon at 11:12 said. I went through the Virtus training and became ill at how the whole 2+ hours of training made it yet more clear that the PADS shelter, nor any shelter belongs in the school. Someone had mentioned on either PubDog or here that Fr. Morello appears not to have undergone the Virtus training.
I am sorry, did not mean to yell:). Note taken, thank you.
Better start yelling and good and loud!
The prev incident involving these folks and the kids can happen - again.
Remember....prevention!
Thank you.
anon 11:12 am:
With all due respect, you are oversimplifying the argument.
No shelter withing 500 ft does not equal safty of children. It equals safty of the children who attend SPC, at least to some degree and I am not even so sure about that. You think the homeless are such a risk and yet it is OK as long as they are not within 500 ft of a school.
By that logic, it would be OK to put the shelter in an empty store right next to the ice cream store. It is 500 ft from a school. By that logic it would be OK to put the shelter at St. Mary's. The 500 Ft rule may address your issue but it does not address the issue.
This proves bad things do happen in homeless shelters.
Police: Four Wounded in Chainsaw Attack at Missouri Homeless Shelter
Saturday, January 19, 2008
NEW BLOOMFIELD, Mo. — A man staying at a homeless shelter has wounded four people in a chainsaw and knife attack.
The Callaway County sheriff's office says 28-year-old Matthew Watkins is facing four counts each of first-degree assault and armed criminal action for the attack at the Mid-America Care Center. The homeless shelter is connected with Christian television station KNLJ.
Sheriff Dennis Crane says two victims were cut by a chainsaw and two others by a knife. Three of the victims were taken to hospitals, and Crane says at least one of those is in serious condition.
The sheriff's office says Watkins is originally from St. Louis. He is being held on $600,000 bond.
The pro-pads/shelter without regulation group was exhausting listening to their smiling faces about how the homeless are JUST down on their luck. Sorry, but there is more to that. It is knownn that most homeless have mental and a variety or other illnesses. It's not that simple.
The pro-pads talked how they would like to practice their ministry and that PR can't stop them. Well by their exhausting speeches of "I do this and my children do that" we get that they do have the opportunity to minister to those in need. DesPlaines volunteers even said they have beds available.
There were some wacky moments and wacky comments but nonetheless many of those folks have sat through every one of these meetings, spent countless hours, and gone over this many times.
The fact is PR needs to regulate the operations of a shelter because it many not always be PADS - does PADS run a good program? That's possible. But the concern extends to outside the walls before and after their program is run. And nothing is 100% including the participation and diligence of the volunteers workignthe program. PR has every right to establish criteria and it is my hope they keep the 500 ft. rule and co-application language.
We shold have brought our own stop watch!
When you get 300, 400 or 700 kids going to, from, or inside that ice cream parlor at the same time, then your comparison may have some validity.
This isn't about the homeless anymore (if it ever really was), this is about what's best for PADS.
I just checked the PADS to Hope website and can't find anything on it about their finances, even though they used to have couple year old financial info posted. And their "Hope Center Stats" (about all the people they've helped) stop in June 2005. That isn't an encouraging sign.
anon 11:36
Yes I am trying very hard to make this simple.
1. The wording of the p&z 500' rule is just an added measure to protect children.
2. It is a good thing, as is the virtus training, as is convicted sex offender are required to register through every state and have their mugshot appear for all the public to see on state police websites.
Here are examples of ADDED measures taken by religious organizations and government organizations to help prevent bad things from happening from innocent children. We adults must be the advocates for the little ones unable to speak for themselves.
Finally,I must send my child to school. We choose spcs. spcs may put my child at added risk. We want to stop spcs from doing that so she can continue to go to school there where her friend are. So... your icecream shop is not the same, I am not required by law to take her to the ice cream shop.
I hope I kept it simple.
Fr Carl's ego is bigger than his Parish Life Center. It is even more insulting that he stated that the email is his personal opinion. He could have easily apologized and said he got swept away by his emotions.
What is interesting, was that cute lady who talked about the cauldron and loving everybody in the room even said maybe fingerprinting is a good idea.
I wonder how many of the pads supporters saw a copy of holy fr carl's email. Their glazed-over eyes might have been opened up.
I could care less about PADS. Ignore them. Forget them. Pretend they do not even exist. I am sure that would make us all a great deal happier.
Let's boil down the issue. We have a group of people/churches (PRMA) who want to have a facility to help THE HOMELESS. Not just some of the homeless but the entire gamet of the homeless. There are people who have concerns about this population (justified or not).
So we have a proposed 500 ft rule. Great! Sign me up! A school should never been a proposed site to begin with. How on earth they thought that the paroshiners or parents would have no objections to that is beyond comprehension. But that does not solve the problem. Just keeping it out of a school does not mean kids are safe. Are you saying that if the 500 ft rule is applied you have no problem with a shelter in PR?? I doubt it.
Listen to all the objections, not just the SPC objections. As I have said 10 times, based on the 500 ft rule the shelter could be at St. Mary's and that was not acceptable.
So now people talk about regulating it. Let's do finger print checks. Sign me up for that too! But Swoboda seems to say we cannot do that (see letter on agenda for last nights meeting at the PR website).
Is it not true that one of the major concerns by those against PADS is that this population has a well above normal percentage of people who struggle with addiction and/or mental health issues, often untreated? How the hell do you regulate that??? Some of this information is confidential. You may have someone who had been to an addiction treatment facility as a neighbor and not even know it. This country cannot even build a proper data base to keep someone with serious mental illness from buying a gun (Va-Tech). Are you telling me that there is some way this could be regulated that you would be comfortable with??
If PRMA had said they wanted to have a shelter to help families who had recently been forclosed on we probably would not even be having this debate but that is not what they want.
So I am all for the 500 ft rule. The rule may address all your issues but let's not pretend that it solves the problem or ends the debate.
Simple is good. You are not required by law to take them to the ice cream shop nor are you required by law to take them to SPC. You are required to put them in school.
If you don't want your children near a shelter and there is a shelter near the ice cream shop or the school, then don't take to those places. There are lots of other good options for ice cream and education (private and public).
It is simple.
By the time this PADS issue is ever resolved,Fr.Morello will be long gone from St.Paul's and we will be left with all the problems.
anon 12:59
I was waiting for that.
1. We made a decision thinking our children would spend 8 years at spcs. Risk including a homeless shelter would have changed our minds about where we first sent our kids. This risk is added after years of going to spcs.
2. I have never thought I was required to take my children to an ice cream parlor. So no risk ever applied here.
Apples vs Oranges...Not the same here.
That is why I said... we first made a choice to send her to spcs. then spcs after two years decided to add risk. Third, by this time we have emotions and friendships built. And finally, we are fighting for the 500' rule so we can continue to send her to spcs.
If, after all this we decide to do. Feelings, emotions, and great friendships are the only thing now that keep us at spcs.
Really, I think you already knew all this and just couldnt resist the ole... you dont have to send your kids there comment.
when I was there (I left early), there was someone who spoke that was NOT from Park Ridge. I thought that it is the "rule" to only allow citizens to speak.
That's what the list is called when you sign in--"citizen" who wish to speak.
So WHY are outsiders allowed to speak?
Anon at 12:59 - So you suggest that I shuttle my children from school to school depending on where the next shelter pops up (barring the institution of the 500 ft rule)? Why is it so hard to agree to protect the kids? Not just on this issue, but on all issues? Health care, education, public safety? On all issues the safety of the kids always seems to be forgotten. Is is really that egregious of a request to have a shelter away from a school?
anon 1:31
The rule was that we all got 4 minutes.
Wuh hoppen wid dat rule?
anon 1:35:
I agree with the 500 ft rule. Would your issues be resolved if PRMA announced that because to the rule they were going to move the shelter back to St. Mary's? Would you then be insupport of the shelter?
Looked like Frimark isn't any better at reading a stopwatch than he is at reading words!
why wasn't holy fr carl ejected for heckling, and being disruptive? That was the threat from Frimork for the rest of the crowd.
I'm still speechless that carl didn't take the opportunity to apologize for his ultimate act of stupidity. "Pride go'eth before the fall" That email should be sent to all of his supporters so that they can see how sound his mind is- that this is who they're blindly trusting and following has divine guidance. He's an idiot - oh yeah and a racist and a bigot.
I can't WAIT till he's gone from spc. Can we change the name of the PLC. He's also wasted so much of our time and energy. this is his legacy,,,
I just want to make sure that part of PRU's post today isn't lost...and that I am reading it correctly...
PRU posted...:::But the most poignant moment of the evening is reported to us as being the mother who spoke about the dangers of believing "it can't happen here" or "it can't happen to you." She told the City Council of a program her child was involved in at Saint Paul of the Cross, through the Park Ridge Center of Concern. She spoke about how she intercepted letters between her child and an older man; the gist of her story being that the older man was a potential child molester attempting to lure her child to meet with him.:::
Do I correctly read that as being...the mother's child was in a program run by the Center of Concern and operated through SPC...? That the mother's child was put in direct contact with a potential child molester through this presumably supervised program...? Is that correct? A supervised program by people telling us to trust their screening and judgment on who they are dealing with...? The same groups that are telling us we have nothing to fear...?
The problem is - that this is not about helping the homeless at all. If it were - then people (even wearing white) could admit that there are issues that would be best not to expose our children to - right in their school gym - 15 mintutes before they arrive. Unfortunately this is not about helping the homeless at all. Instead it is about arrogance, naivete, and the need to believe that anything your pastor or a so- called religious leader says must not be questioned. It is a sad state of affairs. And, yes - I can send my kids somewhere else - it is a shame though, that I may have to do that because of this unfortunate situation.
I thought what i said in the confessional was to remain private? Racist & bigot??? Those are the terms all liberals use when they want to shut the clear thinking mainstream down. The government & the church are always trying to save the world, and the end result is they swindel the people's money & make matters worse. Bend over folks--you can be sure this homeless issue will get you in the wallet.....
Everyone needs to remember that April 2009 is not that far away. Keep in mind the way Mr Mayor Frimark cut the Anti pads people short on time. Don't forget they way he laughed with the Pro pads bunch and scowled when we talked about protecting our children. Mr Mayor Frimark does not care about our children and keeping our neighborhoods safe. REMEMBER
What do you expect from Howard? He has never raised kids of his own. His "family" are the children of his second wife. And they were full grown when he married ol' Nancy.
Howard has never changed his kids diapers, sat up with them in the middle of the night when they sick, attended a PTO meeting (unless it was a campaign event), had to decide where to send his kids to school, if they were out getting in trouble/drinking/doing drugs/running with the wrong crowd. AND Howard certain has never had to think about what he would do to protect his kids. He never had to. So it is easy for him to judge the spc parents as being overly protective, because he does not share the same life experiences. HE CANNOT RELATE!
April 2009 - Anyone for Mayor
anony-mouse: I'm not sure if it is a rule that only Park Ridge citizens may speak.
I do not live in Park Ridge. My children attend SPC and I pay non-parishoner tuition. I also support countless businesses in PR, and prefer to shop locally therefore I pay sales tax in PR. I pay non-resident fees for PR Park District programs, including a pool pass for my entire family.
I dump loads of money into Park Ridge and feel that as a member of the community I am entitled to speak. However, I have become accostomed to people taking on an elitist attitude because I live in Chicago and do not pay property tax in PR, therefore, I choose to remain silent.
April 2009 - Schmidt for Mayor.
Has anyone seen the YOUTH POLICY form for DuPage PADS???
http://www.dupads.com/PADS/youth.policy.html
The highlights :
~ "Youth volunteers should be assigned duties working side by side with adult volunteers who will be supervising them at all times."
~ "Youth volunteers should be reminded not to share personal information or wear clothing indicating their high school or other groups with which they are associated."
~ "Youth volunteers are not allowed in the sleeping areas or outside at any time."
Would they have these policies if it were as safe as the "white shirts" tell us????
Funny how each side "owns" a side of the argument. The pro-PADS side owns the God side and the anti-PADS owns the "we care about the kids" side.
Like anyone who might support PADS must certainly meet all the criteria you lay down about Howard. I have had civil conversations with many people who support PADS. I do not completely relate to them but I can assure you that all of them were parents (most of young or younger children) and all have gone through or will go through all the senarios you lay out.
They can relate. They just see things differently.
Anon 3:53 - So well put! I moved into an neighborhood after having researched the schools, the crime rate and looked at the local amenities. After that I decided it was a good place to raise my kids. I realize there are risks involved in raising kids, but I know what my risks are now. I do not know what they will be when transient people are hanging around my kids school.
When you begin a letter with "I am Father Carl Morello, Pastor of St. Paul of the Cross parish," you're playing the "Priest Card" and you damn well know it. And when you send that letter to the mayor, the city clerk and the entire city council on a matter of public policy before the council, you've got no claim to privacy.
For someone who is so slick and smooth in his priest's role, it's actually funny (and sad) to see how totally inept a bungler he is when he tries to play politician. Talk about a fish out of water!
And if the PRMA members couldn't play their "God Card," this whole PADS shelter mess would have never gotten off the ground.
Most of the white shirts last night were elderly folks who listen to and do whatever the good father c says. That is the way of elderly folks who have always been strong in their catholic faith. It's the way they were brought up. It's the way of "back in the day" when you NEVER questioned your priest. Well guess what....those days are over. We are entitled to disagree with our pastor/priest. It's an American consitutional right. The good father c should be brought to task for his "racist and bigot" letter to the city council. I wholeheartedly agree with hoover. If you send it to the city council as a matter of public policy it should become a matter of public record. Such a shame that the last act of the good father will be one of anger and resentment towards him for thumbing his nose at the community. I pity the poor slob who has to clean up carl's mess after he's gone.
JR
I said before on the blog that I couldn't stand Morello and thought he is a real jerk. Now people are seeing what I was talking about. Morello is showing his real colors.
I will also repeat what has been said so many times, if everyone who claims to want to shelter the homeless took in just one of them one night a week into their homes, there wouldn't be a need for a homeless shelter in the St. Paul gym. I saw no less than 100 white shirt wearing PADS fans at the meeting last night. Come on all you super Christians, walk your talk. Feed the hungry. Cloth the naked. Shelter the homeless. Quit asking this whole community to do it for you.
I agree with PRU, the meeting last night was a big nothing. I feel like I wasted my time. Though I did learn what a scab of a Mayor we have in Howard Frimark. His conduct of the meeting was appalling. I don't expect politicians to not have their own opinion. I do expect them to treat the citizens fairly and equally. Howard Frimark didn't do that at all. I was sitting by some people who were keeping time and they were stage whispering the times of each speaker to those of us around them, and Mayor Frimark was cutting off the people who support regulation of homeless shelters at every time, and letting the people against regulating homeless shelters go on and on and on and didn't bother to hush them each time when they were bursting out of turn. I tell my fellow citizens, our Mayor is an unfair and appalling leader. People like me who want homeless shelters controlled by oversite haven't got a chance. Our priests are using their churches to organize their supporters and our Mayor organizes meetings against the people who question if any of this nonsense will do anybody a bit of good and could hurt our town. I will vote for anybody but Frimark in the next election.
anon 7:23
I was one of those people keeping time and I would just like to thank you for taking note of this. I appreciate your well spoken thoughts on this matter.
so we need our next Mayor to know how to keep time. Cool.
Ald Schmidt--can you keep time?
to the person who suggested that "anyone" can speak at the meetings--it's actually a City Council meeting rule that "citizens" are allowed to speak at a designated time. Non-citizens/non-taxpayers are not allowed to speak. It has nothing to do with an "elitist attitude." It's a RULE. Now...if you are a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Chicago, I know you think that the rules don't apply, but that's what they are.
Thank you for contributing to the ever-dying economy here in our fine town. You are always welcome.
Ms. Manchester --
We don't think that's a rule. As a matter of fact, it's also not a rule that any member of the public be allowed to speak at public meetings; it's a privilege -- that wise elected officials don't withhold from the public.
thanks for clarifying!
ms manchester:
I did not suggest that "anyone" could speak, I simply stated that I'm not sure what the rule is. And while I feel entitled to speak, I choose to remain silent.
I have attended several meetings and have heard testimony from the fine Chicago policemen, and have never heard them denied the opportunity to speak.
Furthermore, if it were a RULE, then why would Frimark even call upon them when their address was recorded on the sign in sheet?
It use to be a nice town here.
What happened ?
Oh ..I get it..greed is good...
Too much TV folks!
Please tell Howie to shut his off
and come back to reality.
you are right, it's not a nice town anymore.
can we go back to fighting about the new police station now? I'm tired of this whole PADS drama.
Remember how two referendums were shot down that would have updated and created a nice swim campus for our kids? Remember how hard the parents (and friends) fought for additional funding for Dist. 64? I can just imagine how this PADS issue would fare if dollars out of citizens pockets were at issue here. I'll be Howie would be hiding his head behind Golf Digest! OR if Fr. Morello's weekly offerings were at stake? And yet again, if the Archdiocese were required to pony up some MORE cash? It'd be a dead issue.
I am all in favor of looking out in the best interest and safety of our children. However, PADS, in most areas run from 7:00PM to 7:00 AM. School is not in session number 1. Number 2, how many children hang around the church between these hours? Number 3, There are many places in and around town that, I for one, would not want mine or any children around....like the skateboard park as an example. What do I do or we should do???? Teach our children to STAY AWAY!!!! Some responsibility has to fall on the parents and raising thier children. What ever happened to accountability and responsibility? It can't be lost forever. Number 4, last time I checked, drugs and gangbangers are in our public schools. Most choose to not see, but they are there. Do we shut down the schools because of a risk to our children. Be reasonable and as parents take some responsibility!
Anon@4:03 --
Sure hope you're in the market for a new asshole. We think at the very least you deserve one for that comment.
What? Truth hit home.....
Not even close. The depth of your ignorance on this issue is amazing. But we've got a feeling you're so proud of your twisted "tough love" idiocy on this that you won't be able to see it even if someone draws a picture of it for you.
"Tough Love"......accountability and responsibility in parenting? Think the world is messed up now? Wait for the next generation. Our future is a product of the present.
Bada Bing for Mayor!!!!!!
Come on Anon@4:33,
Admit that you are taking the "tough love" approach and foisting all responsibility on the backs of the parents in some really twistedly sick way. Parents demanding that the PRMA and PADS not open a homeless shelter inside their kids school and elevating the health and safety risks to their kids outside and inside the school is parent's dodging responsibility and accountability? What world are you living in?
Never said all the responsibility. Yes, the village has responsibility to protect. But the parents have responsibility to teach. What does a guard cost? $50/hr. max? And if you are that naive not to believe that there are drugs and gangs in our schools.....drugs that use needles (health risk??)...Gangs that influence??? It is all in how we raise, respect and teach our children.
Anon@4:53 --
You didn't need to say all. Your position absolves the PRMA and PADS of all responsibility. That is sick and twisted.
If you believe guards are an answer then we suggest you ask the city council to make the cost of guards part of the licensing requirements for homeless shelters.
Is there such a thing as a guard to prevent the elevated risk to the kids inside a school, after the homeless beat a hasty retreat and the cavi wipes have been applied, from breathing in TB mycobacteria? Exactly what are parents supposed to teach their kids about avoiding air bourne pathogens? Assuming you believe the medical literature on the elevated cases of TB among the homeless...
Thank you PRU for having our backs on this. Hey Anonymoosebrain, pull your head out of your ass. Parents are concerned by alot of things that go beyond just the people using the shelter and if you think all those transient shelter guests will magically disappear from Park Ridge after PADS kicks them out of the SPC gym, YOU ARE IN DREAM LAND! I am very aware of the problems we have in our high schools. Why do you think high schools and elementary school kids go to different places? Stop trying to distract from the real issue which is the irresponsible and callous disregard shown to the parents and school children in this town by the arrogant priests and PADS pushers. There are many responsible and accountable parents taking a great deal of responsibility and accountability for looking deeper into this airhead idea being foisted on us by White Shirts and their so called leadership. It hasn't been the White Shirts or PRMA that is looking very closely at all the issues around this plan and it sure hasn't been the White Shirts or the PRMA that have given one nanosecond of thought to any alternatives, that is for damn sure.
Whoomp! There it is! How do you like your new asshole, Anon?
Anonymous October 1, 2008 4:03 PM
You have GOT to be kidding right? Like the PRU said, what world are you living in? Unbelievable!
wow.
I have seen the true colors of many people in this town lately. That person is quite another sad example.
Your studies you refer too are mainly inner city stats. I guess the homeless will be bussed in or walk 20 miles for a meal. If you believe there are not homeless in our town, you are blind. The risk of catching something in a McDonalds washroom is higher if you want to try to throw stats. And by the way, the reason for middle and high scholl has everything to do with consolidation and minimizing the number of scholls and absolutlty nothing with seperation of drugs and gangs. Again read your stats on drugs and sex in middle schools!
Anon@8:00 --
The studies aren't ours; there are many sources -- some more reputable than others, but all conclude the same thing about the elevated incidence of disease among the homeless population. The 3 million people living on the228 square miles directly to the East of Park Ridge is considered by most to be a large urban population, and despite the Little Big Man's efforts, has a rather teeming "inner city" population that includes many homeless. Those big shiny and noisy things you may have seen on some streets and rails are known as trains and buses; referred to under the umbrella of "public transportation". Which is the way PADS clients are said to often move from town to town for their one night a week stay in that evening's designated PADS flop house.
We know there are homeless people wandering Park Ridge. About 5 or so, according to none other than members of the PRMA. That number does not merit the opening of a PADS shelter which will simply bring into Park Ridge more homeless.
You clearly do not understand either statistics nor risk. The concentration of homeless in any location, coupled with the generally higher level of communicable diseases in the homeless population -- vs. within the general population -- increases the risk of transfer.
The differences among grammar school, middle school, and high school students, as people, has much to do with the separate facilities. The differences among student groups contribute to differences in problems. The poster, by our read, didn't say the separate facilities were designed as an answer to a gang or drug problem.
When the issue under discussion is drugs and gangs in schools, we'll get more reading done. Until then, we intend to stick to the issue at hand.
The homeless population suffers a higher rate of communicable diseases, as concluded by a mountain of studies, than does the general population. The homeless population also suffers a higher rate of mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse than does the general population. The homeless population also includes those with petty criminal backgrounds as well as violent criminal backgrounds and sex offenders, who are allowed to register as homeless in Illinois, if they register at all, and many don't.
Opening a homeless shelter inside a school increases the risks that school age children are being exposed to -- no matter how much you may choose to ignore logic and common sense.
there was a well-spoken person at Monday's meeting, who stated ACTUAL cases of crimes committed by homeless people (the one downtown a few months ago, the stabbing at the AH police station, etc.). Anybody have a copy of that info? It would be interesting to read the FACTS instead of all the babbling nonsense.
The last anonymous person obviously is coming into this discussion late, misinformed and misled. I have to assume that based on your comments.
There is a difference in ages of children - this being in a school where there are 4 year olds who don't understand yet to not puttheir hands in their mouths.
Yes it's the parents responsibility to teach them that but how many times do YOU have to tell your kids something over and over until they get it. Also those attacks that officer Riccio talked about are actual cases - reported in the big newspapers you can google them in the suntimes or tribune. NO matter how ON YOUR GAME you are, an attack can occur and obviously has. We can't protect 120% but we do our best to avoid as much risk as possible. And no matter how we try to teach our children they are still jsut that - influenced easily and as much as we try can certainly think that helping a homeless man/woman is the right thing to do until they dfind themselves in a bad situations
PR's 5 homeless people should be helped - let's help them! Find out what type of services they need nto bring in more and introduce the town to 25 more homeless people who YES are known to have greater number of health and substance issues. This PADS program HAS additional programs to help people get back on their feet but they are not REQUIRED. Big difference.
Let me get this straight, parents who want to avoid exposing their children to more risks by the opening of a homeless shelter in their school gym are being accused of not taking responsibility for teaching their children to avoid risks??????????????????????????? In all of the back and forth on this debate, that has got to be the dumbest, most ignorant, most stupid, most irresponsible thing I have heard yet.
Anonymous who thinks parents aren't taking responsibility and being accountable for parenting their kids and keeping them safe, you can go *F* yourself.
the PRMA must be soooo proud of what they have created in this community. SO proud.
Post a Comment