Homeless Facility Near Eastwood

[HedwigTramp]

Homeless facility threatened despite powerful support

Some Eastwood residents oppose plans for project to house 220

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5900326.html

[crunchtastic]

I do not agree with many of my neighbors on this one. ( Although, there is less opposition than the Chron would have us believe. I know a few of my civic minded neighbors who aren't up in arms.)

IMO we should pick our battles more wisely. The fact is, there is a fairly good chunk of third ward crackville (the real deal) along Scott between this facility and Eastwood. I feel no more threatened by this facility than the Star of Hope on the edge of downtown--which is also over a mile from my house, separated by rail yards and other industrial concerns. There's a lot of crackville between me and them already. I would rather have a properly run facility than a vacant motel.

I've expressed these same opinions to Jame's office--how about putting the pressure on to step up the pace of the sewer projects, or dealing with all of the overgrown lots, and vacant property? I would consider that to be far more effective local government. Some Eastwooders would have you believe there are half a dozen facilities housing desperate crackheads across the street from them, and in fact it's just not true. Let's put it this way--the last panicked email that made the rounds from a crime victim in Eastwood, was a woman who left her car unlocked in the driveway and some stoned neighborhood teenager broke in.

[musicman]

wasn't there another thread on this already? i took a tour of the one by ninfa's and was amazed at how well it was maintained and secured. the company behind the ninfa one is doing the one along the gulf freeway between griggs and s wayside. it can only be better than what was there before IMO.

[RedScare]

I must say those are two of the most ANTI-NIMBY comments that I have ever read. I wholeheartedly agree with crunch that picking battles is a much more pragmatic approach to these issues (I'd agree with music too, but I have never been to the other facility). It is actually pretty refreshing to read common sense posts like the two of yours, as opposed to the "run screaming into the night" posts that some posters (they know who they are) usually write.

I was going to suggest the same thing when I saw this thread, but since it is not my neighborhood, I decided to hold my tongue and let you guys post first. I am glad I did.

[Vertigo58]

Homeless facility threatened despite powerful support

Some Eastwood residents oppose plans for project to house 220

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5900326.html

This will not have any effect on the surrounding area neighborhoods. This has always been bum heaven for decades anyway. It will be bothersome to Finger's customers, The Charismatic Center and to the ever so close, U of H facility/grounds and the traffic stoppnig at the near intersections. Sadly it will fuel trouble for the very nearby quick stops & gas stops. Downtown historically has always pushed the homeless towards the East End as a whole. The trend continues. We love them. lol

PS, it was a very productive place for U of H students to live back in the 80's. Had a nice eating area and cozy bar. Is it too late to make for students? One can only ponder.

[CHiPs]

Homeless facility threatened despite powerful support

Some Eastwood residents oppose plans for project to house 220

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5900326.html

Well, I've seen the soup kitchens in Midtown. I drive by one every day and get a little creeped out. I watch them stand out there loitering and chatter about who knows what. I almost hit one the other day. I understand the Mayor's view to help the homeless, but if it going to become a homeless facility it should be run in a safe manner for everyone. Isn't there an elementary school nearby?

[Eastwood79]

Hell no - no more shelters. We need to move Eastwood up in the ranks, not down. The developer says that they want to use this location because it's cheap. Well guess what - adding another homeless shelter is just going to help keep the area cheap and underdeveloped. No thanks. We have enough shelters as it is.

I agree that a shelter may be better than an abandoned facility, but it's not as good as real growth and development. Hell, it's not even as good as just leveling the place.

As for the folks saying that we need to pick our battles, that's the kind of attitude that has kept and will continue to keep Eastwood from developing and getting rid of the crack houses, etc. I say fight every battle, inch by inch if we have to. I see no reason to give in.

[memebag]

I agree that a shelter may be better than an abandoned facility, but it's not as good as real growth and development. Hell, it's not even as good as just leveling the place.

Not as good for whom? For homeless people in need or for homed people looking for an easy way to profit on real estate?

[RedScare]

Hell no - no more shelters. We need to move Eastwood up in the ranks, not down.

So this location is in Eastwood? I thought the other posters said it was a mile away. It sounds like it is even on the other side of the freeway. Is it?

[crunchtastic]

What's kept Eastwood from growing and developing is the old people and brown people are not leaving quickly enough so that their houses can be bought, rehabbed and sold for $250-300K. Only a few yuppies can move into the neighborhood at a time.

[musicman]

So this location is in Eastwood? I thought the other posters said it was a mile away. It sounds like it is even on the other side of the freeway. Is it?

it's next door to fingers on the feeder.

brown people

indiginous remember lol

[crunchtastic]

So this location is in Eastwood? I thought the other posters said it was a mile away. It sounds like it is even on the other side of the freeway. Is it?

It's on the Eastwood side of the freeway.

It's also close to all the dozens of new expensive townhomes going up. From what I can tell, the District I shelters have not exactly been an impediment to growth in the east end. The oft-mentioned other facilites in the district are surrounded by new towhnhome builds, in fact.

Opposing Magnolia Glen is fine, and I'm happy to see this level of civic involvement. But it does nothing to fix what is actually broken in Eastwood. It doesn't clear the lots, it doesn't knock down the vacant buildings, and it doesn't fix the infrastructure. Once my District I rep is done grandstanding, how about some tangible results?

[RedScare]

I don't know, doesn't opposing homeless living quarters tarnish one's "White Cred"?

[crunchtastic]

I don't know, doesn't opposing homeless living quarters tarnish one's "White Cred"?

One would think, but remember this is the 'hood where the the new urban pioneers refer to their mexican-american neighbors as 'indigenous'. AKA local code for 'not invited to the Friday night wine tasting'. lol.

[rps324]

With 70% of these type of facilities in the Houston area concentrated in District I, I for one am glad James Rodriguez is taking a stand to spread the wealth around as far as where they put these places.

[MidtownCoog]

They should build this in The Heights.

[RedScare]

They should build this in The Heights.

If this were proposed to be built on an I-45 feeder road one mile from the Heights, I wouldn't bat an eye. In fact, I would be surprised if there are not similar facilities already near the Heights. Not that there would not be much wailng and gnashing of teeth if it were proposed near the Heights. Just that I would have the same response to it as I do now.

[Eastwood79]

Not as good for whom? For homeless people in need or for homed people looking for an easy way to profit on real estate?

Um, how about for tax-paying, law-abiding, residents who want the neighborhood to be cleaner and safer?

indiginous remember lol

i had no idea there were so many native americans in eastwood.

They should build this in The Heights.

lol.

i mean, i understand the pro-shelter "arguments" (cheap site, plenty of homeless nearby, maybe the shelter can pick up some of the druggies from the crack houses too), but in the end this is only part of a continuing effort to keep these shelters out of the more developed neighborhoods and consolidate them into one area away from the gentrified west side of town.

am i an enlightened, forward-thinking, altruistic soul if i propose to build a bunch of homeless shelters in my neighbor's backyard and none in mine? if he complains, who's guilty of NIMBY then? both, but one is honest about it.

the truth is no one wants these shelters near their homes, businesses, recreational areas. and no one wants to build a home or business near an existing shelter. everyone prefers that homeless people congregate somwhere else. once you acknowledge that, it becomes clear that the choice of where to put a homeless shelter is nothing more than a matter of political power. and i strongly applaud Rodriguez for flexing some.

i have more points, but i'm old and this rant has made me quite sleepy.

[musicman]

i had no idea there were so many native americans in eastwood.

ah you must be going to the wine tasting then. LOL

[robhan]

I have a feeling that the next mayor could be a real hard rear when it comes to the homeless. It seems to run in cycles.

[Eastwood79]

I have a feeling that the next mayor could be a real hard rear when it comes to the homeless. It seems to run in cycles.

Thanks for the nomination.

[memebag]

Um, how about for tax-paying, law-abiding, residents who want the neighborhood to be cleaner and safer?

Nope. I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding resident who thinks a new homeless facility near Eastwood is better for Houston than "real growth and development". Homeless shelters don't increase our homeless population. They can help homeless people become homed people. I'd much rather have that than higher property values and more shopping. I think we can narrow it down to the subset of those tax-paying, law-abiding residents who bought real estate on the cheap where the poor and homeless live and want to profit from moving the poor and homeless somewhere else.

[rps324]

There are positive things these kind of places do. There can also be some negative consequences for the communities where they are located. I do think that James Rodriguez objecting to more of these facilities being place in District I when it is already host to 70% of the ones in the city is a legitimate objection. Something at least three at large City Council people concur with as well. I personally think it is a bigger concern than weeds in vacant lots and that sort of thing, but that is just my opinion.

[Eastwood79]

Nope. I'm a tax-paying, law-abiding resident who thinks a new homeless facility near Eastwood is better for Houston than "real growth and development". Homeless shelters don't increase our homeless population. They can help homeless people become homed people. I'd much rather have that than higher property values and more shopping. I think we can narrow it down to the subset of those tax-paying, law-abiding residents who bought real estate on the cheap where the poor and homeless live and want to profit from moving the poor and homeless somewhere else.

Not so. My family has been in Eastwood for decades (and has no plans of moving) and we'd be quite happy to pass on this new shelter.

[crunchtastic]

We got word yesterday, according to someone in the East End Mgmt District as of Friday, the Magnolia Glen deal is off the table. All I got was a forwarded email, and not from anyone in the apparatus, so take it at that. Good news, hopefully. Now we can focus on the sewer project that apparently is going to all of 2008 to complete.

[crunchtastic]

Well, this appears to be the story that won't die (not to mention the story that no one in the east end civic groups can get a straight answer to).

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5912311.html

Oh, and it even merited an op-ed:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5912077.html

According to the article, the civic association board did not accept an invitation for the Magnolia Glen devleopers to make their presentation at one of our meetings, and previously voted in favor of the project 6-1. I attend the meetings, and was at the one in April. In fact, there hasn't been civic assoc. mention of the project in a couple of months. I don't know the process by which the board 'votes' on anything, nor their process for vetting anything throughout the neighborhood. Despite the fact that my partner and I both have provided our email addresses on different occasions, we're only kept in the loop because our neighbor forwards stuff he only intermittently gets. We no longer have an association website, and as far as I can tell, the main activity of our little student council is planning happy hours that have a rather short guest list.

In this case, it seems as if most residents opposing the project went straight to James' and the mayor's office--not through the civic association, and that's why Bill White came back around and tasked James with getting some closure on the issue.

[Eastwood79]

Thanks for posting the article, crunch.

An excerpt from the op-ed:

"Anthony Love, president and CEO of the Coalition for the Homeless of Houston/Harris County, says the issues raised against the project are emotional, irrational and inaccurate. Such residential facilities keep most residents off the streets and, contrary to property owners' fears, do not decrease property values and in some cases provide a catalyst for redevelopment. He's appealing for a public dialogue with opponents of Magnolia Glen to correct false perceptions."

Is this guy on crack? Is that why he's arguing for this shelter - so he can get high on crack and then crash at the homeless shelter?

Let me be as blunt and non-pc about this as I can: homeless people, specifically homeless single adults, not families, have nothing to lose. If they loiter, beg, steal, rob (stealing and robbing usually for the homeless with a drug habit to support) they might succeed or they might end up in jail for a couple of nights where they get fed and can sleep indoors - not bad options. So yes, I think they are more apt to break the law. Building a shelter just invites them to come be more apt to break the law in the neighborhood. The only reason there are already homeless people near the MG area is because there's free shelter (abandoned buildings and such).

By the way, when people talk about keeping the homeless off "the streets" they really mean off their streets (or off the streets they use to get to work and go to dinner). Homeless people want to stay in a shelter all day everyday about as much as you want to stay home all day everyday - they're going to end up on someone's streets.

And as for homeless shelters being catalysts for redevelopment, I would love to hear of examples of new residential or commercial developers or homebuyers that decided to come to a neighborhood because the neighborhood had several homeless housing facilities. Oh the synergy!

There are real reasons that most people do not want a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. Perhaps Mr. Love thinks that everyone needs their perceptions "corrected." More likely he needs his corrected.

I agree with the last thought of our op-editor: let them convince a community to host the shelter and then build there. Yeah, good luck with that.

[TheNiche]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I understand where Eastwood79 is coming from. NIMBYism is easy to understand. And even though Magnolia Glen isn't actually in Eastwood at all, or really even right up close to it, I can understand why Eastwood property owners would prefer that it be much further away, still. After all, that area right around Magnolia Glen is one of the last bastions of crack shacks between Eastwood and downtown, and the perceptions surrounding a homeless shelter (real or imagined) could impede demolition and redevelopment there and conceivably inhibit home price appreciation in Eastwood.

So if Eastwood79 and his/her compatriots will admit that they're greedy, selfish, profiteers, out to make a buck at the expense of this organization and the deserving veterans that it would serve, I might just do the same, join forces, and endure Crunch's wrath tomorrow night (sorry).

But if you Eastwood Civic Assn. folks can't admit that you're being total assholes, then I'll stay home that evening (or possibly come out against you). Ethics mean everything to me.

[RedScare]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I understand where Eastwood79 is coming from. NIMBYism is easy to understand. And even though Magnolia Glen isn't actually in Eastwood at all, or really even right up close to it, I can understand why Eastwood property owners would prefer that it be much further away, still. After all, that area right around Magnolia Glen is one of the last bastions of crack shacks between Eastwood and downtown, and the perceptions surrounding a homeless shelter (real or imagined) could impede demolition and redevelopment there and conceivably inhibit home price appreciation in Eastwood.

So if Eastwood79 and his/her compatriots will admit that they're greedy, selfish, profiteers, out to make a buck at the expense of this organization and the deserving veterans that it would serve, I might just do the same, join forces, and endure Crunch's wrath tomorrow night (sorry).

But if you Eastwood Civic Assn. folks can't admit that you're being total assholes, then I'll stay home that evening.

What makes sarcasm so humorous is the element of truth contained within.

[TheNiche]

What makes sarcasm so humorous is the element of truth contained within.

I don't disagree. But I also wasn't being sarcastic.

EDIT: I wouldn't begrudge you or others from coming to the meeting and expressing your concern that the facility might ultimately end up near you. Duelling NIMBYs could be interesting (and really funny).