The Godfrey Administration Offers Emerald City's Homeless a Helping Hand
By Dan S.
Amazing article in today's Standard-Examiner about how the city wants to move St. Anne's homeless shelter out of downtown, to west 12th Street.
It's amazing not because this comes as a surprise, but because they have the audacity to suggest that the homeless should all walk from downtown out to west 12th Street and back every day.
The article (by Scott Schwebke) does a great job pointing out how ridiculous this is (12th Street doesn't even have sidewalks), and includes a terrific quote from John Patterson explaining how the purpose isn't to try to get the homeless out of downtown, it's to give them "a helping hand."
I suppose Patterson will also be offering them rides in his city-subsidized automobile?
Comments?
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
23 comments:
I don't know enough about homeless services at the St. Anne Center to know whether a new center at a 12th Street location, offering more and better services, will better meet their needs or not. I do think it is disingenous of Mr. Patterson to suggest that the proposed move in no way is motivated by the desire to get the homeless [and resulting panhandling] out of the refurbishing downtown area. Recall the move to oust beer-selling convenience stores on lower 25th Street.
Moving homeless services away from what the city hopes is developing as a higher-end residential/condo area may not be a bad idea. If there's a good case to be made for it, let Mr. Patterson make it. But disembling and claiming the proposal is motivated by altruism pure as the driven snow, and nothing else, is pointless, and only serves to undermine public confidence in the veracity of the Godfrey administration [such as it is] even further. It seems administration spokesmen just can't help themselves....
Dan,
I don't mean to address each of the reasons why it would or would not be good to move St. Anne's. My only point at this time is to strongly suggest that you look at the "No More Homeless" initiative coming down from the Federal level. The proposed move to 12th Street is,in part, to make the shelter better able to move on the programs designed around this initiative.
The "No More Homeless" initiative is targeted at the people who are looking for, but cannot find or cannot manage for themselves, a permanent or semi-permanent residence.
The proposed 12th St. location is next to a bus stop so transportation would be available for those in the new center.
I am not impressed with the "No More Homeless" initiative being promoted on the Federal level.
The bureaucrats that dreamed this one up have no clue about the actual situation in each little town and city that they are telling what to do.
The indigents do not have bus fare to ride a bus back and forth every day for a meal.
Oh, I know..now the Feds will give them bus money.
You will never convince me that this is not part of the Lord Mayor's plan to create his "pure" concept of what is best for downtown Ogden and 25th Street in particular.
That plan is to get rid of all indigents and lower income persons in downtown Ogden.
The irony is that they will stay be in town but just not where the "pure" citizens will see them.
I wonder how he is going to hide all the illegal Hispanics and other races that now make up 25 to 29 per cent of ogden's population and that are certainly not the cream of society.
Thanks, Rudi, for promoting my quick comment on today's article.
In response to the preceding comments...
High-end or low-end, the relevant feature of downtown is that things are relatively close together and you can get from one place to another without a car. It seems highly probable that a large percentage of the homeless are without cars. To put a homeless shelter in a neighborhood designed only for automobile access is simply ridiculous. The general plan identifies west 12th Street as a "commercial single-use district".
The proposed 12th St. location is next to a bus stop so transportation would be available for those in the new center.
West 12th Street is served by a single bus route (613) with half-hour service on weekdays, hour-interval service on Saturdays, and no service at all after 7 pm or on Sundays. Councilman Safsten, I humbly suggest that you travel entirely by bus for a week before you suggest that this level of service is acceptable.
It also seems just a little bit possible that some homeless folks might not be able to afford the bus fare.
If the shelter needs to be expanded to accommodate additional programs, then let's find a location where we can do that in the central city. It's not as if every acre is already being used to its maximum potential. There's no point in offering new programs if people can't get to them.
If "No More Homeless" is as successful as "No Child Left Behind" the homeless will really need to worry.
How 'bout the Shupe-Williams site? Its on a bus line and close to city services!
For what it is worth, I think a good comparison could be made to the westend of downtown SLC. Although there is a major homeless shelter on Rio Grande Street, it is hasn't slowed development at all. In fact, as the shelter continues to increase in services, the surrounding area is booming-- Gateway Center, major new hotel, ArtSpace, Rio Grande Depot, new Big-D headquarters, hub for FrontRunner, new trax line, etc. If this is a good comparison, which I argue it is, just because St. Anne's is located on the west end of downtown Ogden it does not necessarily mean it will hinder future development. I'm sure the City can make a case for why St. Anne's can be moved to 12th Street, but I think we all know what their underlying reason is, and I agree with Curm that it is disingenuous of them not to lay it out there.
I wonder if godfrey would go to europe again and then the saint ann's could then burn down and then we would need to have any more tax dallors to a new one. and the best place to build saint ann's http://www.dexonline.com/residentialsearch.ds
this is what I think would be best for everyone in the city!
Let's suppose that Mr. Patterson had said something like this: "The St. Anne's center, and its clients, do not, we think, fit very well with the kind of development we are trying to foster downtown, and we think it would be best for Ogden if the center were relocated to the 12th Street site. But we are also intend that the homeless clients of St. Anne's benefit from moving the center as well. We intend to see that the new center is larger, and will offer more services to its clients than can now be offered at the present location. We think we can offer services in the new facility that will help many more of the homeless find permanent work, and places to live so that they will no longer be homeless. And so we think the move will be good for downtown development, good for the clients of St. Anne's and good for Ogden City overall."
That's an honest argument. That's an argument I can take seriously, for it is honestly made. I might not agree with it's conclusions, but I can take it seriously, look into it, ask around for other opinions, other evidence [such as they offered by Dan. S. regarding a similar center in downtown SLC], consider the transportation question, and possible solutions [increased UTA bus service if the center moves; complementary bus passes for St. Anne's clients; a St. Anne's shuttle bus], weigh it all and then come to a conclusion about whether I think it's a good idea for Ogden City to move the Center or not.
But, sadly, that is not the argument the Godfrey administration, through Mr. Patterson, made.
Let me be plain: as a resident of Ogden City I want my city officials [elected or appointed] to deal with me and the rest of the public openly and without disembling. I want honest statements in support of proposals, and full ones. I will not tolerate disembling. Not from the Mayor, Council memebers, administrative appointees or anyone else in public office, or any candidate for office.
You want my support for something? Then speak plainly, frankly and fully about why you want to do whatever it is you propose to do. That does not seem a great deal to ask of public officials. In this instance, I don't think we got that from the administration via Mr. Patterson.
Key decisions are being made regarding the location of services and developments. Since transit is essentially on hold in Ogden and getting farther from reality with each passing day, these decisions are made with little regard to a transit infrastructure. Godfrey has singlehandedly set Ogden several decades behind SLC other front cities in the race for a modern transit system. Thanks Matt.
Two observations in regards to the relocation of St. Anne's
One - The relocation would be right next to a youth center? Nice going!
Two - $4.8 million dollars! How many of those dollars are going to come from Ogden City residents pockets. If the City Administration keeps suggesting that we spend like this and the City Council keeps saying yes to all of these projects the city is going to go broke. The mayor will say we have two choices; raise taxes or sell assets. Thus we may be setting ourselves up to have to sell the open space.
The St. Anne's move may be a good idea but not next door to a youth center and maybe some time down the road after the city knows where its at financially after we've finished a few of the projects we already have in the works.
Look at the bright side, as we always say. Boss Godfrey hasn't gotten around to "criminalizing' the homeless in Emerald City, as some cities have done. Not yet, at least.
His plan is merely to make it so uncomfortable for the elements he doesn't like, that they'll leave voluntarily.
We're linking here a "Narratives of the Meanest Cities" toward the homeless.
We love the gentle-hearted San Francisco story where "they" decided on "one way" bus tickets outta town, (get this,) ...for the holidays:
"After responding to complaints of homeless people loitering outside the San Francisco Public Library, the police decided to provide homeless individuals, unhappy living in the city, with one-way bus tickets. The plan would "reunite them with loved ones for the holidays." The S.F. Police Department recommended coordination with the bus companies and local businesses to fund tickets, along with boxed lunches."
Talk about dissembling...
The "Godfrey Brain" (Stuart Reid) doesn't seem to be working lately, having ignored the San Francisco one-way bus ticket option experience.
We're hearing Boss Godfrey didn't soak up the San Francisco data and lesson during his last League of Cities and Towns SF convention brain implant.
Even his neoCON handlers are wondering how he missed this one.
Our gentle readers theories on Boss Godfrey's thick-headedness are welcome here...
Nobody should construe my comments yesterday about Neil Hansen as implying anything adverse. My only point was that Glasmann ran as a populist with the support of the crony’s cronies, the Geiger boys. I believe they will have several mayoral candidates in this coming race to cover their bets when Godfrey gets dumped. I also believe there will be many candidates for mayor since everyone can smell Godfrey’s blood in the water. Mr. Hansen may be very good, but we need to see some history. Talk is cheap. Forgive me for not responding yesterday but two out of three of my analysts have told me to stay away from the WFC for the sake of my obsessive/compulsive issues.
As far as the homeless, Godfrey is known to want to improve the quality of Ogden residents. My guess is he would like the homeless center to be gone altogether. Gone too would be our neighbor cities transporting their homeless to Ogden and dropping them off, which they do. Personally, I feel most of the homeless we see around town are crazy and I prefer the word, “bums” to “homeless”, although I do feel St. Anne’s does good work and is a worthy charity. I agree with Godfrey’s wish to improve Ogden’s appearance and caliber, but his socialist schemes will doom all of us as you have said. He is in way over his head. Most people don’t know that much of the development we have seen in Ogden has been underwritten by the city. In other words, when times get tough and these companies bail, Ogden will be left holding bonds with no way to pay for them. Now I need to take another pill, lie down, and try to stay away from WCF for another week.
Danny (not Dan S.)
tec,
I think you're a little unfair to Godfrey on the transit issue. He was one of the first strong proponents of the sales tax increase to fund commuter rail (the FrontRunner), shortly after he took office in 2000. The FrontRunner will be a reality in one more year (eight years from when Godfrey took office), and it was the right choice for a first priority.
Godfrey also understands the importance of good transit within Ogden, but unfortunately, this and everything else has to be adjusted to accommodate his gondola scheme. Has the gondola set transit projects back by decades? No, but I could make a case for half a decade or so, and counting.
Danny
Like most people on this blog, your knowledge (not opinions) you are way off the mark.
The Geigers did not support Bill Glassmann for Ogden City Council.
Both Bob and Curt were very concerned, as Bill, Bob's neighbor, showed every sign of being against anything that the Mayor was trying to do. He had SGO signs in his yard.
Curt had had several slightly heated discussions with Bill and he appeared to be very strongly in the Vause, Hall camp.
Bob offered support to him out of fareness after rumors were started about Bill that were hurtful to Bills family. Bob asked Bill, if elected, to give change a chance and to open minded.
Neither Bob not Curt voted for Bill.
Bill, Curt and Bob became closer friends after Bill left the City Council. Bill discovered that the Mayor was not a crook. That the Mayor was not cheating the public. That the Mayor was working very hard to bring business's to Ogden.
Bill ran for office to "Clean up the City" and the city. He discovered that the city just needed help and was not the crooked dispicable place he had thought it was. He then allpied for a position in Economic Developement for the city.
Stop trying to distroy Bill Glassmanns repretation on this blog by painting him as some narrowminded Lift Ogdenite.
He is a good guy who is still not convinced that a gondola is a good idea. He just realized that the Mayor and the Admin. are not crooks. Having made that discovery he became fodder to all of you.
Curt Geiger
Curt Geiger said:
"Bill, Curt and Bob became closer friends after Bill left the City Council. Bill discovered that the Mayor was not a crook. That the Mayor was not cheating the public."
Too bad Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon is dead. He and Godfrey would make great Bridge partners.
Glasmann has NEVER had a Smart Growth Ogden sign in his yard, neither before, during, nor after the campaign. He did, however, get both Bob Geiger and the Sierra Club to endorse his candidacy, something no other candidate was able to do.
Ahem, Curt.
It's fine if you take issue with any individual poster.
Danny revealed he was already feeling a little cranky.
What we wonder is why you found it necessary to flog everyone who posts here, along with the poster with whom you took exception?
We think we have a pretty good diversity of opinion on this blog, and that the overall thoughtfulness and intelligence of our readers compares favorably to any blog anywhere in the blogosphere.
We simply don't understand why you feel it's necessary to insult everyone here, when your issue relates to one particular reader/poster.
And an aside to "Danny": The world would be pretty boring if we all agreed on all subjects, wouldn't it?.
"Post away, Danny," we say.
And going back to Curt we offer this sound advice: "Don't be a little bitch."
Moving St. Anne's to twelfth street makes no sense at all. St. Anne's current facility is only about 10 years old, and a non-profit. I donated towards the construction of that building, and I am deeply disturbed that St. Anne's board and director would consider moving.
Or is St. Anne's being forced out somehow? What does Ogden City want with the land? With so much empty commercial space, we certainly don't need new office buildings downtown. Who would want to live right next to the railroad tracks? A housing project there couldn't possibly be successful. With extensive amounts of empty retail space and the new projects on Washington
12th Street is an important entryway to the city and is no place for a homeless shelter. The proposed location would be sandwiched between the Ogden Nature Center, one of the crown jewels of Northern Utah, Millcreek Youth Detention Center, and Business Depot Ogden. BDO has been working hard to attract new business to BDO. Will a premium outdoor company want to be located next to a homeless shelter? I wouldn't.
Two Rivers High School is across the street. Should a homeless shelter be purposefully placed next to the Nature Center, which is visited by thousands of schoolchildren each year, or across the street from a high school? No!
THe lives of homeless people are hard enough and don't need a location that is harder to get to on foot. We need to help make these people's lives easier and help them to help themselves. Our honorable councilman is wrong when he says that they can take the bus. Its like Marie Antoinette saying Let Them Eat Cake! If you've ever ridden the bus around here, or anywhere, you'll discover it is not the homeless that use public transportation - they can't afford it.
I am just beside myself on this one. I hope the city council and the mayor back off on this idea. If St. Anne's simply must be moved, it should be moved to a location other than out 12th St.
Dear Anon signing Mr. C. Geiger:
Two points: first, as I recall much of the criticism aimed at Mr. Glassman dealt with his resigning a seat on the council to which he had been elected less than a year earlier. Some, myself among them, thought that when someone stands for public office, he or she makes a committment to serve to the end of his or her term [absent serious illness or a family crisis making that impossible.] I don't think raising questions about the ethics of resigning a public office less than a year after being elected constitutes character assassination. [Though I grant you that some posted attacks on Mr. Glassman that absolutely count as "character assassination." But by no means "all" of us did. And some of us in fact criticized those attacks. You paint with too broad a brush sometimes.]
Second: You wrote: Both Bob and Curt were very concerned, as Bill... showed every sign of being against anything that the Mayor was trying to do. He had SGO signs in his yard. I hope you were not trying to suggest [though I suspect you were} that someone with an SGO sign in his yard is, necessarily, someone "against anything that the Mayor was trying to do." As someone with an SGO sign in his yard, and knowing as I do many others who are SGO supporters as well, I can tell you that that is flatly not true.
I and other SGO supporters have applauded the Mayor when he has done or advocated something we think is in the best interests of Ogden. And I and others thump him when we think he is wrong about what is best for Ogder or when, sadly, he behaves dishonorably as a public official. [E.g. the FAQS suggesting that the downtown plus Peterson Gondola will save thousands of drivers from having to drive to Snow Basin because the gondola will deliver them there instead is still posted on the City's website. There is no excuse for that.] But the implication that all SGO supporters oppose "anything" the Mayor wants to do is flatly and demonstrably false.
So, vill der Fuhrer have his edict nailed to the city hall doors that everyone in his kingdom vill have blue eyes and blond hair? Contacts for all dark-eyed peons and get those Clairol bottles open!
Ve must haf PURITY in the land of GODfrey....banish the undesirables..
As earlier suggested...build a better facility on the Shupe property...or just burn down a building in another area ( a wee bit further out of downtown than the current St Anne's).
When will the rabble with lighted torches march though the streets of the kingdom in protest of this fuhrer?
Again....ONE MORE TIME if Rudi doesn't erase this....Glasmann NEVER had a SGO sign in his yard.
(additional posting policy violation deleted by administrator)
We think you'll get along a helluva lot better, Jon, if you'd take the time to read our WCF posting policy.
You might want to pay special attention to this part:
"We will remove posts in the following instances:
*The post concerns an administrative decision related to posting....".
We're happy to have you posting here; but you have to abide by the rules, just like everybody else who's a guest here on this blog.
And as a side-note, flaming the blog or the blogmeister ain't a real smart idea, either, if you'd like to have your comments remain here in perpetuity.
Just a helpful hint from your old pal Rudi.
New comments are not allowed.