For some reason I didn't know Lakeshore was still in use for psychiatric services.

Except there is a locking gate between Lakeshore and the Sequoyah homes. Lakeshore is a hospital, not a home.

This amendment clears up uncertainty in the conditions regarding acceptable use that accompany the conveyance of the land from the State to the City. The language in the 1999 agreement was not at all clear on this point. We thought it important to make sure that this location could in fact be considered for permanent supportive housing. Obviously this just gets the legality of the use established; there is no specific plan in place at present. Any plan that might follow will be first publicly discussed and vetted. Thanks.

"They were not surrounded by security gates and directly next door to destabilized patients and forensic patients awaiting trial."

Or well-traveled walking trails and one of the most heavily used parks in the entire city...

But, by all means, allow the Hutch machine to turn this into a wedge issue to peel off Farragut support for Burchett.

Nimby?

Nine, I observed that lakeshore was the elephant in the room with regards to the homeless long before you even started paying attention:

http://www.knoxviews.com/node/10532#comment-71295

I'm mildly annoyed that you've taken the issue and run with it, but that hardly makes me a nimby. Not that facts matter to you. Or the homeless. So, feel free to trump this up in order to tee up your boy - again:

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/flory/2009/11/hutchison_weighs_in_on_west_kn.html

Look at the Nimby's come out of the woodwork.

Hmmm, maybe you really are too dense to realize my line about "well-traveled walking trails and one of the most heavily used parks in the entire city..." was a poking fun at Cathy's assertion that there's no "community" at lakeshore.

One block to the convenience store Toby, and they serve hot food. Three city blocks to the Walgreens, Burger King, and Friday's. Is that close enough?

http://www.knoxviews.com/node/12409#comment-84865

A mile and a half through that kind of traffic to walk to Walmart for groceries isn't for the faint of heart. I don't think anyone expects people to go to the convenience mart and live off Slim Jims and Vienna Sausages. There are few sidewalks in this area and public safety to the homeless residents will be an issue. Pretty dumb location.

Stop pretending.

Now, I'm thinking about this and I could be wrong because I (luckily) have never been homeless, I'd rather live at the Lakeshore location. It's the prettiest of the three in discussion (Lakeshore, Debusk, Flenniken). I'd have to check on the distance for walking to stores, as well as check on sidewalks or decent roadside space. I'm guessing that existing public transportation is quite similar for Lakeshore and Flenniken.

Hmmm, is taking your own objections about DeBusk as a benchmark and applying them to Lakeshore objecting to homeless housing at lakeshore? Or merely pointing out your hypocritical political opportunism?

Curious that you're still trying to play the busted flush, though.

it was just pointed out to me that Ragsdale took TYP funding out of the most recent county budget. If that holds true for the FY 2011, his successor will have nothing to say about this at all.

I just tuned in. That is probably the most expensive undeveloped land in Knoxville owned by the municipality (city?)

Can't believe that the powers that be are going to develop it for "assisted living" or "temporary housing" or whatever they are calling it.

Lakefront property for homeless housing? I would be thrilled were I to be moved there as a homeless person, but the property is surrounded by people paying very high taxes for the same living space.

What is going on here?

Our position has long been that Lakeshore would be a good site for a permanent supportive housing development. It's fair to ask why. Here's a list:

4. Siting a PSH development at Lakeshore would be in step with the TYP's strategic aim of distributing supportive housing opportunities throughout the community.

Four very fine reasons to locate the PSH at the Lakeshore location. The suggested $500,000 price tag of the DeBusk location seemed outrageously expensive, especially considering that the surrounding property values are far lower. By choosing Lakshore, the savings of $500,000 dollars will go a long way toward extended services for the homeless.

Also, as Tess pointed out, the Lakeshore location is a lovely area with a view of the lake (as opposed to the dark, heavily forested, sinkhole-ridden location in Lovell Heights [DeBusk]). For those of you who have never physically visited the DeBusk location in Lovell Heights, the property is quite dark and gloomy with little to no sunshine. Only a few spots of dappled light. When I read of that location, I wondered if the developers chose it because it was hidden.

Many homeless people have lived in darkness: mentally, emotionally, and physically. The Lakeshore location offers brightness, openness, and light; it is an inspiring choice.

Are we talking about halfway housing that serves people until they are ready to step into the community or are we talking about a permanent home for people who just need supports to function in the community?

This is a good point, one which I have never clearly understood. Mr. Finley, will you clarify?

I misspoke, Nine. Perhaps it wasn't time to fold after all.

This whole psh thing is almost ridiculous. Is there really a TYP? Should plan be a part of the title?

Apparently there is no real planning going into site selection. It seems to be either, here someone has some land to dump, let's take it, or sure Lakeshore is great, let's take it.

I know, I know, I know, how about if they put some psh on the UT campus. Students can be used to assist with the housing needs, social workers, teachers, financial planners, etc.

I seems to me there's a bit of disconnect in this thread.

Some folks seem to think that ALL PSH should be at Lakeshore. I THINK what TYP is talking about is using Lakeshore as only one of the sites.

WEST TOWN AREA ALERT!
PLAN ON ATTENDING

PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
TO DISCUSS
THE PROPOSED 48 UNIT
PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON TEABERRY LANE

Thursday March 18th 2010, at 7:00PM
At the Arnstein Jewish Community Center
6800 Deane Hill Drive, Knoxville, TN 37919

Area Homeowners have asked Jon Lawler, Director of the 10 Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness to discuss the proposed 48 Unit development of permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless disabled individuals* on Teaberry Lane off Gleason Road

This is a Public Meeting and our neighbors will have the opportunity to ask questions.

Gene Patterson from WATE will moderate the meeting.

* "The ADA defines disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” of an individual. Congress recently passed amendments to the ADA to emphasize that this is a broad definition intended to include obvious physical impairments such as paraplegia, blindness and deafness, as well as physical and mental impairments and conditions and diseases that may not be so apparent, such as diabetes, epilepsy, tuberculosis, AIDS, alcoholism, drug addiction, mental illness (including depression, post-traumatic stress syndrome, and schizophrenia), developmental and intellectual disabilities, and learning disabilities.

For more information about the Ten Year Plan Go to: http://www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/development/homeless10yrplan.pdf
For a definition of Supportive Housing please go to:
http://www.csh.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=118
and click on the CSH Definition of Supportive Housing link.

Knox County faces competing moral and economic dilemmas of what to do with a growing homeless population and how to alleviate the expensive problem of jailing our homeless citizens and the chronically mentally ill.