Public meeting re. proposed West Town area homeless supportive housing

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 3:26pm

What: Public meeting re. proposed West Town area homeless supportive housing
When: Thursday, March 18, 2010 - 7:00pm
Where: Arnstein Jewish Community Center, 6800 Deane Hill Drive

Area homeowners are having a public meeting with Ten Year Plan director John Lawler to discuss a proposed 48-unit supportive housing development on Teaberry Lane off Gleason Rd. More details in the press release after the jump...

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 here.

For a definition of Supportive Housing please go here and click on the CSH Definition of Supportive Housing link.

135

vote

I think it is great the

Submitted by bizgrrl on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 3:49pm.

I think it is great the community has become involved. There are many unanswered questions.

One being, where is the information regarding the "proposed 48-unit supportive housing development on Teaberry Lane off Gleason Rd"?

According to a KNS article dated 2/11/2010,
David Arning of Southeastern Housing Foundation will be the developer and owner of the property, and, according to Lawler, is lining up funding, including federal tax credits.

Maybe the TYP people can provide more specifics as to how the homeless selection process will work for this site. Also, what kind of services will be on-site? What kind of controls will be at the location to ensure the neighborhood maintains its integrety?

good questions

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 4:00pm.

"Maybe the TYP people can provide more specifics as to how the homeless selection process will work for this site. Also, what kind of services will be on-site? What kind of controls will be at the location to ensure the neighborhood maintains its integrity?"

I think those are important questions. I don't understand the concept of moving the patients, and that is what they are, away from services. We either have to bring services to them or transport the patients to services.

How can we afford to do either in this economic climate?

You make a good point about

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:16pm.

You make a good point about services. That is a very dangerous trek down Gleason for these patients to have to walk to get even their basic necessities.

Teaberry info.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 2:09pm.

Cross posted here.

Background: The Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness

The Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness (TYP) in Knoxville and Knox County is part of a national movement to end long-term or chronic homelessness. A person who is chronically homeless is, by HUD’s definition, a disabled individual who has been homeless for at least one year or who has had four episodes of homelessness in the last three years. Another perspective: People who are chronically homeless struggle with some disabling condition, whether it be mental, physical, or related to addiction, and lack the resources with which to address their issues. We always find homelessness where mental illness and addiction meet poverty. The TYP offers a long-range, comprehensive approach to ending homelessness, a key part of which is helping homeless people gain stability in permanent supportive housing (PSH).

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Characteristics

PSH offers residents permanent rental housing set up for independent living (an apartment), and then surrounds them with the social services they require in order to stay in their housing.
• A PSH development is not a mental institution, an emergency shelter, a halfway house, or transitional housing.
• PSH residents sign a lease, pay rent, and can stay as long as they need/want to and as long as they abide by the terms of their lease agreements, just like residents of any other longterm rental housing.
• PSH saves money. It costs the community much less to house someone in PSH than it costs to leave them in a state of chronic homelessness because PSH residents consume far fewer emergency services. Dr. Roger Nooe’s 2006 study Local Cost Estimates (Knoxville, Tennessee) found that a chronically homeless person costs our community an average of over $40,000 per year. We are still gathering data on costs, but we believe that an average PSH resident would cost our community less than half that amount.

The Teaberry Housing Development

Teaberry Housing is a proposed 48-unit permanent supportive housing development for men and women who are chronically homeless. The development is in its very earliest stages. An architect has not yet been engaged and no design work has been completed, so the following description is general in nature.
• Teaberry will be owned and operated by Southeastern Housing Foundation, a nonprofit affordable housing developer in Knoxville. Development will be funded by a mix of tax credit equity and various grants. The developer will contract with a professional property management firm with experience in affordable housing, and case management programming will be carried out by Volunteer Ministry Center.
• Teaberry’s facility will include a number of the physical attributes necessary to any permanent supportive housing development. These attributes contribute to a safe, secure, and healthy living environment.
• Safety and security are vital to residents, case managers, and the community. Teaberry residents will be very low-income, and will likely need HUD Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers. KCDC must do certain kinds of background investigations on applicants for these vouchers, and cannot grant them to people who have been convicted of violent felonies, certain kinds of drug offenses, or sex offenders. If a prospective resident does not plan to use a voucher, the owner/developer of Teaberry (Southeastern Housing Foundation) will conduct background investigations to the same standard as KCDC’s.
• Teaberry will feature a common entry with controlled access. The property will include offices for a property manager, office space for case managers, laundry facilities, common-area bathrooms, and ample community space.
• The development will be quality new construction and will consist of 48 one-bedroom units, each including its own private kitchen and bath. The structure will probably be two stories in height, with a brick and/or Hardie siding exterior.

Teaberry: Unbuildable

Submitted by Robert Finley on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 4:32pm.

The TYP's nonprofit affordable housing development partner, Southeastern Housing Foundation, discovered today in the process of conducting a geotech study that the Teaberry site is not viable for the PSH development previously under consideration there. The sinkhole system at the site is extensive, and development there would be cost prohibitive.

The previously-scheduled meeting for 7pm, March 18 at the Arnstein Jewish Community Center is still scheduled. The City and the TYP are committed to an ongoing public dialog about site suitability, case management programming, service delivery, and other components of PSH. The questions prompted by the earlier announcement of the proposed development are germane to PSH in general. We look forward to a candid discussion this Thursday.

Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

Teaberry Lane

Submitted by bizgrrl on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 4:03pm.

Short dead-end street off of Elderberry Drive, off of Beaverton Road, off of Gleason Road. There appear to be lots of apartments and condos in the immediate area, with the Kingston Woods and Kingston Hills neighborhoods close by. In addition, there is an assisted-living facility on Beaverton.

Oakmont School, Knoxville

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:27pm.

Oakmont School, Knoxville Jewish Day School and a day care are also very close by.

Metulj,

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 4:31pm.

Why did you lock the Lakeshore Thread? It makes sense to have the Teaberry Lane discussion here but there is no reason to lock a current thread that still has relevant discussion.

Please unlock the thread so the discussion specific to Lake Shore as a site for homeless housing may continue.

Thanks.

Metulj didn't lock it, I did.

Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 4:35pm.

Metulj didn't lock it, I did. There hadn't been any discussion on that thread for over a month. Mr. Peabody posted a comment there for lack of a better place. He also sent me an email yesterday but I hadn't gotten around to posting his press release and almost forgot until I saw his comment.

Don Daugherty wrote an

Submitted by Elaine Davis on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 4:52pm.

Don Daugherty wrote an opinion piece printed in the 3/07/10 edition of the KNS. His article raises some very good points on how as a community we are to balance some of these competing forces and come to an agreeable solution, but more importantly one that is respectful to all parties involved.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/mar/07/chronically-homeless-need-suppo...

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.

let's try again

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:44pm.

I would appreciate it if this will be allowed to stay up. The last time I posted it, someone truncated it into a hyperlink.

Don Daugherty asks an important question. Rather than spread the homeless away from critical services why not put them at Baptist Hospital. I think Mayor Haslam and the Ten Year Plan should discuss this with the people of Knoxville.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/mar/07/chronically-homeless-need-suppo...

From Don Daugherty:

But the solution lies right in the heart of downtown Knoxville. Baptist Riverside, formerly Baptist Hospital of East Tennessee, now mostly vacant, is located on the banks of the Tennessee River.

Other than the costs of maintaining this huge facility, Mercy appears to have no financial investment in it. And, from an engineering standpoint, demolishing the building isn't realistic, given the instability of the caverns underneath.

The facility is large enough to eviscerate a seemingly insurmountable problem for our county in the coming years. After all, community-based mental health programs are much cheaper - and far more effective - than continuing to put the mentally ill in an environment where many do not need to be.

The building could house a community-based safety center, voluntary mental health treatment facility and permanent supportive housing for the chronically homeless, all of which are sorely needed.

I like it.

Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:05pm.

I drive Gleason several times a day. This is a multi-family housing neighborhood within walking distance of stores and potential employers. Before it is completed there will even be sidewalks on Gleason.

"I drive Gleason several

Submitted by Rick H. (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:08pm.

"I drive Gleason several times a day. This is a multi-family housing neighborhood within walking distance of stores and potential employers. Before it is completed there will even be sidewalks on Gleason."

Gleason Road is a death trap for people on foot. Who said there will be sidewalks?

sigh

Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:14pm.

1. Drive down Gleason. 2. See the sidewalks being built. 3. Notice the teenagers who walk that road twice a day. 4. This facility will have residents who qualify for LIFT.

The sidewalks will end

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:19pm.

The sidewalks will end exactly where you see them end now at the intersection of Gleason and Gallaher View.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:27pm.

"1. Drive down Gleason. 2. See the sidewalks being built."

There are no sidewalks under construction in front of the Manderin House. What you are talking about is way down near Bearden High School.

This is the second time you have supported endangering homeless people walking on roads with no sidewalks. What gives?

At any given time of day you

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:23pm.

At any given time of day you take your life into your own hands attempting to turn onto Gleason from a side road or business. Things really heat up though when the BHS students head to and from school.

This is not multi-family

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 5:30pm.

This is not multi-family units. It is 48 one-room efficiencies. The similar units at Manvilla are only 12x12 ft.

Sidewalks on Gleason

Submitted by Ron Peabody on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 6:46pm.

Please go to the following Link: http://www.gallaherstation.org/blog/?p=44
and read a comment from Deputy Director of Knox County Engineering and Public Works, Jim Snowden regarding the Gallaher View-Gleason Road Intersection improvments. It was posted on Gallaher Station's Blog. It clearly states "Knox County will reconstruct the intersection as follows: provide turn lanes on all approaches, sidewalks throughout and extend to both school entrances, traffic signal at intersection, realignment of South Gallaher View leg to provide better visibility and flood control pond in southwest corner to alleviate downstream water issues.'

I believe that this means the current Sidewalk construction will go no further than it is right now.

Sidewalks

Submitted by Elaine Davis on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 7:25pm.

The restructuring of the 4-way at Gleason and Gallaher and the sidewalks are being put in after years of lobbying the city.

One of the primary reasons was safety of the students at Bearden High having to walk/cross Gallaher and Gleason. And as I recall, a student had been hit.

Disappointed in Bill Haslam

Submitted by Rick H. (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 7:30pm.

I got an email with some text from what Bill Haslam said last night in City Council. I am very disappointed in the way Bill has handled this Ten Year Plan program. Just like Mike Ragsdale did, Bill is letting the Ten Year Plan rush through this Teaberry site. The vote for this will be on April 6th in City Council.

This isn't enough time for the people to meet and understand what this plan is. Not everyone can attend the meeting March 18th. And there should be at least a workshop in Council before any vote is held.

Bill, I am disappointed in what you have done. This isn't on the City website. And other than here on KnoxViews it hasn't been in the press. If it was important enough for you to say in front of City Council it should be public to all.

It is not right to consider a site that doesn't have sidewalks. You are creating a public safety hazard and it just isn't right.

Text from last night:

Mayor Bill Haslam address to City Council 3/9/10 on the Ten Year Plan and the Teaberry Lane site

I want to reiterate my and the city administration's strong support for the Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness. The decisions regarding implementation of the plan are hard for all of us. I very much appreciate the time that members of council are spending to help deal with the very difficult and costly situation that homelessness presents to our entire community.

We are committed to finding appropriate sites for permanent supportive housing in locations scattered throughout our city. We are even more committed to making these sites work for nearby neighborhoods.

We are approaching this challenge of selecting and evaluating a location a little differently from here on out. We think that it is important that we have a clear process by which council can decide on the appropriateness of a site and a clear avenue for those who have concerns about the site to both have their questions addressed and, if they oppose the location, to express the reasons for their opposition.

On Thursday March 18th there will be a public meeting to discuss the proposed plan to locate a forty-eight unit complex for permanent supportive housing at the Teaberry Lane location in West Knoxville.

I have asked Bill Lyons to play a major role in this process on behalf of the administration and in support of the excellent work that Jon Lawler and his staff are doing. At the March 18th meeting Bill, along with Jon, will present the concept under consideration and participate in the discussion of any impact on the neighborhood. We will hear from neighbors and others regarding their questions, concerns and other reactions.

This meeting and discussions in the weeks to follow will inform council as they consider this location as a suitable site for supportive housing. We plan on presenting a resolution of conceptual support of this site for Council's consideration at the April 6th meeting. While this will not be the final word - as Council will likely deal with requests for funding a later time - it does provide an opportunity for honest and thorough discussion of reasons why this site might or might not be suitable.

Of course those who believe that the site is not appropriate will have the opportunity to present the reasons for their opposition to Council at any time during and following the public meeting as well as on April 6th

Process for Consideration of Suitability of Teaberry Lane site

Submitted by Bill Lyons on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 11:22pm.

Rick, Like you we were disappointed that Mayor Haslam's presentation to City Council at the start of the meeting was not covered in the media. Hence shortly after noon today Jon Lawler sent the text of the remarks to the person with whom he has been corresponding about the community discussion next week so that it could immediately be distributed to neighborhood leaders. Thank you for posting it here.

This process Mayor Haslam described allows discussion of what is proposed, consideration of the suitability of the location and a meaningful opportunity for concerned folks to express reasons for their support or opposition to the administration, and subsequently to Council.

It allows Council to frame their consideration in terms of the site's suitability. Most importantly it lets people know that their concerns can be expressed in a meaningful way to a legislative body prior to its deliberation. Council will have the benefit of hearing the reasons for support or opposition from all concerned parties as it considers whether or not to express conceptual approval of the appropriateness of the site for permanent supportive housing.

As Mayor Haslam indicated, we have planned to offer the matter of site suitability to Council for its consideration in four weeks at the April 6th meeting. Isolating the issue at hand to the appropriateness of the site - apart from other issues such as cost and funding source - should allow for timely framing of the arguments around this location. However, if the administration and/or Council, in discussion with the public, comes to the conclusion that more time is needed for the project to be fully vetted the schedule can certainly be adjusted. Thanks.

___________________________________________________________

Mayor Bill Haslam's remarks to City Council 3/9/10 on the Ten Year Plan and the Teaberry Lane site

We are approaching this challenge of selecting and evaluating a location a little differently from here on out. We think that it is important that we have a clear process by which council can decide on the appropriateness of a site and a clear avenue for those who have concerns about the site to both have their questions addressed and, if they oppose the location, to express the reasons for their opposition.

Teaberry site

Submitted by Rick H. (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 8:29am.

Bill, I am having great difficulty with this site selection. Will sidewalks on Gleason be part of this decision? If not this is creating a public safety problem. I would have never expected that Bill Haslam would do that.

I am upset with the speed this is being run through City Council. It isn't fair and it isn't right. Why the great rush? There should be a Council workshop before this vote. Can the vote be set back until a workshop is held?

nothing about this flawed

Submitted by michael kaplan on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 10:41am.

nothing about this flawed process surprises me.

Teaberry, TYP, The whole ball of wax

Submitted by Anonymous54 (not verified) on Wed, 2010/03/10 - 10:57pm.

I have wondered the same thing as Mr Daugherty - Baptist would potentially be a great location for many reasons. I feel more positive reasons than negative, allowing for my ignorance about both.

I fully support the ideals of A 10 Year Plan to end chronic homelessness. God help us all, some of us are closer to losing our homes than we care to be... It's serious business. My family works with homeless persons in Knoxville and we feel we have, not just a moral obligation but rather, a moral desire to help those in need.

All I can see so far however is money grabs because federal funds are involved. Hasn't the Fifth Ave. Hotel funding increased exponentially? I know it has another name - Minvilla Manor but that sounds way too Orwellian for my liking.

I have sooo many questions about Knoxville's TYP. A few that pop into mind are these: How many Section Eight requests are unfilled by KCDC? Are the Chronically homeless included in this count? How many are women and children? Why does Knoxville's TYP not include Women and Children? How many Section Eight qualified properties are sitting unused? How many county properties are sitting on the rolls that could be used?

My mind is racing with questions I hope Mr. Lyons and Mr. Lawler come prepared to answer a bunch more...

Who's keyboarding for you?

Submitted by Blobbylife (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 1:02am.

"I know it has another name - Minvilla Manor but that sounds way too Orwellian for my liking."

That name's been on the cornerstone at that building since Orwell was a little kid, you imbecilic vacuum. If you want to engender fear towards the homeless, I recommend the proven child molester/violent criminal memes.

Lets Look at Orwell

Submitted by whooshe65 on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 8:26am.

Orwell was born in 1904, Minvilla was born in 1913. Yeah, so he was 9.

"All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome."

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

"Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility."

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
George Orwell

Mr. Orwell speaks the truth-no matter how old he was, or we are.

Do any of Mr. Orwell's quotes apply here. What do you think!

Really?

Submitted by Anonymous54 (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 9:11am.

Wouldn't I have to be Imbecilic OR a vacuum?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that ANYONE who has posted here is engendering fear toward the homeless. IN FACT you blobby life are the only one that has put rubber on those shoes.

The discussion seems to mostly include remarks about site suitability and a better process for working with the public on spreading the homeless out in the city limits, (did the county decide to back away?)so, blobby life I'm not sure where your anger is welling up from?

Do you own the property on Teaberry?

The concerns expressed here are certainly valid.

Submitted by Bill Lyons on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 10:11am.

I don't think anything is to be gained by questioning the validity of concerns of anyone regarding the Teaberry, or any other site. We have a full week before next week's meeting so that folks can take time to prepare, discuss with others, and come with their questions, suggestions, and concerns. We expect a robust discussion. We are very hopeful that we will be able to speak to people's real concerns and show by answering questions and citing experience elsewhere that the proposed supportive housing will in no way cause any harm to the neighborhood. That is a commitment we must make when a site is selected and a commitment we will keep.

While we are optimistic that the meeting will help assuage a lot of concerns, the task is made difficult by the degree of misinformation that has been floating about. Regardless, even with accurate information, reasonable people will always disagree. While we are all better off if the disagreement is civil, folks have every right to express frustration and anger if that is what they feel.

I am hopeful because the Minvilla vote, amidst much community concern, started a dialogue that grew into Broadway Central Task force and helped begin the Downtown North redevelopment area. I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that things have not gotten much better during that time. Today's KNS has a front page story on a major new mixed-use investment just a couple of blocks away. New condos have been build down fifth avenue, even closer to the site. While the area around Teaberry is, of course, not at all comparable the point is that locating a permanent supportive housing complex in an area does not have to in any way be a negative for that area.

Will Mayor Haslam make the Ten Year Plan statewide as Governor?

Submitted by buttorfly on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 10:07pm.

Bill, is this Ten Year Plan going to be something Bill Haslam plans to incorporate into every town in Tennessee if he is elected Governor? Will Mayor Haslam carry this Ten Year Plan statewide as Governor Haslam?

I will send emails to each of the seven leading candidates along with the plan and its history so they can speak to this issue. This Ten Year Plan could be the type of issue that makes or breaks the Governors race for Bill Haslam.

Council workshop?

Submitted by Rick H. (not verified) on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:34am.

Dr. Lyons, I asked you previously why this is going to a vote on April 6th without a City Council workshop. We would like an answer to that question. We do not appreciate the way this is being fast tracked. The City is not proceeding in good faith.

Also, by email this morning I received Bill Haslam's response to the invitation to attend the meeting at the Arnstein Center. It was addressed to Ron Peabody. It read:

Ron
Thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately , I already have a commitment for
that night. But , Bill Lyons will be there representing us I appreciate your
interest in the process and look forward to everyone having a chance to have
a full discussion about it.
Thanks , Bill

To say we are disappointed is an under statement.

A note on process

Submitted by Bill Lyons on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 1:54pm.

Rick, I want to make sure to underscore a couple of points. First, to reiterate, the goal has been presentation to Council regarding a resolution of conceptual support for an April 6th vote. The initial presumption was that the issues could be isolated, discussed, and considered in that period. That date has focused folks on the issue at hand, hopefully, and away from some of the items less appropriate for discussion that has been part of the conversation since the potential site was brought to the public's attention on Feb 11th.

Of course often things turn out to be a little more complex as Mr. Finley as noted in regard to the sinkhole issue. If more time is needed to further flesh out this or other issues than of course the schedule can and will be adjusted. The administration and the ten year plan folks have absolutely no interest in pushing the issue of site suitability to a premature decision or in putting Council in a like position. Certainly Council has the option of requesting a workshop (It is Council's call) and a workshop would be one factor that would cause a vote to be postponed.

The process that has been in place here brings these issues to the forefront before the project is too far down the track. It brings the public into the due diligence phase on the basic question rather than much later in regard to Council action on another element.

A lot of the things that have been brought up here in this thread are to the point of the TYP, City Administration, and Council's consideration of site suitability. These points, and others, will almost certainly be brought up at the meeting.

Thanks, and I hope that this provides some clarity.

Request for Workshop

Submitted by Ron Peabody on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 3:38pm.

Dear Dr. Lyons,

With the revelations about the proposed site on Teaberry being an existing sinkhole and the speed in which a City Council “Conceptual” vote has been arraigned for April 6. Our community now believes that it is incumbent on the Mayor’s office to delay any vote for at least 30 additional days, so your office can call for and hold a City Council Workshop on this issue.

We are also asking you to let the community be part of the process.

Ron Peabody
West Homeowners Representative

Unsafe at Any Speed?

Submitted by edens on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 12:34am.

People say the damnedest things when you point some homeless housing at their head.

site suitability? gimme a break!

Submitted by Bird_dog on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 1:01am.

Any so-called discussion about any proposed location is really about "those people". I have actually gone to the TYP website and studied the powerpoint where the objectives were developed. An amazing amount of work has gone into the strategies that are in place - by a large number of participants, including all the agencies involved in providing services to folks who find themselves homeless.

I actually trust that the folks at TYP and VMC know what they are doing. Why should we, the public, who have only gotten involved as a response to a particular site for PSH, try to second guess site suitability???

No sidewalks? What about those of us who actually already live in neighborhoods with no sidewalks? Why is it any more dangerous for 48 particular residents than is is for the rest of the neighborhood. Children are required to get to school on their own within a mile of the school, and yes it is ridiculous that kids have to walk along Gleason to Bearden High! But who objected to their families moving into houses and apartments on the rest of Gleason - an obviously "unsuitable" location?

At least let's be honest about the objections to the Teaberry site.

site suitability? gimme a break!

Submitted by justryntogetalong (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 10:30am.

Honest needs to start with the TYP folks. I'm not so sure who we are trying to help here - homeless or developers. Shouldn't we be building lives, not buildings?

^

Submitted by S Carpenter on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 10:58pm.

"Shouldn't we be building lives, not buildings?"

Not to be smart, but if you are not offering your house, we'll have to rehab some buildings.

yes we should be building

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 9:35am.

yes we should be building lives, eg. case management. Not lining developers' pockets with complex historic rehabs jammed together with homeless housing. there are plenty of buildings out there, Scott, but apparently there's not enough pork in them to satisfy developers.

here's a 20-unit, all brick complex next to an assisted living center for only $595,000.

Here's 17 units, on property zoned for 31 units, on Asheville Highway. Only $499,000.

yes, they may need some modification, but not from scratch.

There are 91 multifamily buildings currently for sale on the MLS. Still don't understand why TYP feels they need to start with a shell (Minvilla/Flenniken) or from the ground-up (west Knox.)

What a waste of time and resources.

and with thousands of

Submitted by michael kaplan on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 10:47am.

and with thousands of homeless in the streets and woods, we need to be talking about rooms + common facilities, not individual apartments. the entire model is wrong.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 10:49am.

"There are 91 multifamily buildings currently for sale on the MLS. Still don't understand why TYP feels they need to start with a shell (Minvilla/Flenniken) or from the ground-up (west Knox.)"

It is the least cost effective way to address the problem. Another frustration with TYP is they have such a poor process to select sites. All they care about is zoning. Sidewalks and access to food and medicine should be more important than any other criteria.

Nearest bus stop requires walking in a very unsafe area. This is a public safety hazard to the homeless patients and to the public that has to drive on Gleason Road. Will the City propose micro-bus service like it did on Debusk Lane. Try selecting better sites. Then the taxpayers don't have to pay for both housing and transportation.

The way Bill Haslam is ignoring this public safety issue is of great concern. Will he be attending the meeting? Or will he send someone to stand in for him? As Mayor public safety is his responsibility. That is not someone you delegate.

Some observations (leading to some questions)

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:10am.

I should first concede that I don't know beans on this subject, so I'm reading everything and listening to everybody.

Concerniing this apparent Plan emphasis on new construction of facilities, I, too, am failing to understand how it came to be. In reading over the Ten Year Plan (http://knoxtenyearplan.org/files/2008/01/homeless10yrplan.pdf), I see recommendations throughout the study to "identifying currently available housing properties" and "identifying existing housing resources," especially on page 23 (under the heading beginning on page 21, "The Ten Year Plan: Strategies"). In fact, a footnote on page 23 specifically indicates that "this recommendation includes effective utilization of nine existing SROs, weekly motels, and efficiency apartments, which currently have high vacancy rates." Another footnote on page 24 also cites as an "impressive" program NYC's Common Ground supportive housing facilities, which include at least one retrofitted building offering "private sleeping “cubicles” left over from (its) former life as a traditional Bowery lodging house."

Another observation I had relating to the "impressive" Common Ground program is that it appears to operate facilities of varying sizes, including The Prince (just two leased floors), The Christopher (three housing programs under one roof and ranging in size from 20 to 147 units), and the converted Times Square Hotel (a full 652 units).

I'm therefore left with a couple of questions, namely 1) when and particularly why did TYP abandon this original recommendation to shop existing construction, and 2) why has TYP apparently proposed housing facilities of uniformly small size, rather than a "mix" like appears to exist within NYC;s Common Ground program?

(Apologies in advance if I've missed any previous discussion on these points...)

when and particularly why did

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:13am.

when and particularly why did TYP abandon this original recommendation to shop existing construction

Free Federal Funding for more and bigger construction projects would be my guess.

Accessibility to services?

Submitted by RK (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 8:35am.

The plan does look good, but until I actually see the sidewalks being poured, I do not think anyone stuck on foot should be put so far back from a main road with a decent walking path.

I cannot drive and have on few occasions had to walk Gleason. I don't recommend it--not only are the yards uneven and full of holes, the drivers will honk and verbally abuse you if you have to get out in the street.

Why not put the development closer to a main road and a grocery store so people can actually have a short, safe walk?

They may be able to use LIFT, but LIFT does take a long time to reach the existing customers and it sure doesn't make the homeless independent.

So, my teenagers and their

Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 11:45am.

So, my teenagers and their friends can walk that entire area, but adults who have survived more hardships than most people can imagine cannot live there without a sidewalk on every street? I don't think so. Next NIMBY excuse?

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 12:24pm.

"So, my teenagers and their friends can walk that entire area, but adults who have survived more hardships than most people can imagine cannot live there without a sidewalk on every street?"

You allow your kids to walk on Gleason Road where there are no sidewalks? I find that hard to believe. But maybe you do. You sure didn't care for the safety of the homeless patients at Debusk Lane. Or the people who would have to look out for them while driving.

So you have no concern for motorists on Gleason Road, many of them elderly, who already have to negotiate a narrow road with a blind hill? The intersection at the Weigel's is already dangerous enough without adding to the problem. I think your opinion is irresponsible.

I just asked my teenager

Submitted by fischbobber (not verified) on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:10pm.

I just asked my teenager about your teenager's gang that walks up and down Gleason. While I'm certainly happy that your children and their friends haven't been killed, apparently they're doing their walking at a time when virtually no one in the neighborhood can see them. The comment I personally made was that we should see the infrastructure before the development is even considered.

Sidewalks in this area are long overdue. Before the city and county ask this neighborhood to absorb more ill planned development, infrastructure updates are a prerequisite. Please feel free to organize the campaign to raise taxes so we can be assured that this project is done right. Oh, wait, you don't care if it's done right as long as it's in our neighborhood and not yours.

In addition, if this project is going to be seriously considered there needs to be green way access for bicycle travel, access to medical facilities (as in downtown west) , a bus stop and a plan for twenty four hour support. Otherwise the site just doesn't make sense.

At this point there isn't a lot of NIMBY going on. There is quite a bit of "Where is the-" (take your pick) accountability, money going, infrastructure, plan, geologists report, accountants reports, feasibility study, local representatives? We have plenty of questions, we're just not getting answers. Should we teach our children to accept bad government to appease your motives, whatever they may be?

Due diligence or the lack of

Submitted by Daniel2 (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 12:44pm.

Mr. Lyons, what kind of due diligence does the TYP do? The reason I ask is that my parents live at the Meadows condominiums and one of the units next to Teaberry is uninhabitable because of structural damage from the sinkhole. You do know about that don't you? The unit next to it may be unfit for habitation soon. I find it hard to believe you didn't check that out.

The entire property at Teaberry is part of a sinkhole system. The pool on Teaberry is build on fill. The entire lot where the pool is and next door is built on fill. Way back when the condos on Teaberry were built the sinkhole system was filled in. As you know, that does not stop a sinkhole system from flowing.

With all the other sites you had available to select from how did your department do such a poor job picking this site? Baptist Hospital sits there vacant and is perfect for a site for the homeless.

My parents and their neighbors have had to hire an attorney to protect their condos from this site. I really don't think it is fair of the City to ramrod this through with such poor due diligence. Building anything on the filled sinkholes threatens my parents home.

I don't appreciate the stress this has put on my family. I don't see you have any process for site selection other than zoning. Having supported Mayor Haslam in each election I feel betrayed by the way this has been done.

I will be at the meeting with my parents and plan to ask you this publicly.

Why is Baptist perfect?

Submitted by metulj on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 12:47pm.

Why is Baptist perfect? Because it is empty? Hospitals are extraordinarily expensive to retrofit.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 1:04pm.

"Why is Baptist perfect? Because it is empty? Hospitals are extraordinarily expensive to retrofit."

Yes it would cost a fortune if all the rooms in Baptist Hospital were converted to efficiency apartments which is the only thinking of the TYP. But you know the TYP way is not the only way to house the homeless.

It is possible to put a lock on each door at Baptist Hospital and use the existing cafeteria to provide three meals a day. We have to look outside the narrow constraints of the TYP mantra. They have the most expensive plan to house homeless people of any plan.

Push them out away from crucial services and put them in efficiency apartments which must be new construction. Either transport the patients to services or bring redundant services to them. It is the least cost effective way to deal with the problem. And another part of the problem is the 49% of the homeless in Knox County that come from outside the state of Tennessee. We simply have become a dumping ground for the entire country.

This TYP needs to be rethought. We simply cannot afford it and it is not the only way to deal with the problem.

Hospitals are extraordinarily

Submitted by bizgrrl on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 1:06pm.

Hospitals are extraordinarily expensive to retrofit.

I don't necessarily think Baptist Hospital is a perfect solution. However, what do you think will/should happen to Baptist Hospital? Also, it's not like Minvilla has been cheap to fix up. Wasn't it about $200,000 per unit? Or am I way off?

bizgrrk, you're only a little

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 3:16pm.

bizgrrk, you're only a little off. Manvilla is ONLY $125,000/12x12 ft unit

To be honest with you, I

Submitted by metulj on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 4:33pm.

To be honest with you, I think the old hospital is going to be a major problem going into the future. Converting hospitals to other uses is very, very expensive because of environmental remediation that is necessary as well as reconfiguring rooms for residential use. It seems like a layup, but Chicago, Philadelphia, and, my direct experience with such a project, Jersey City have all had varying degrees of success. The minimum per sq ft conversion cost I could find was in Philadelphia, the MetroClub, was $150 a sq ft to convert to condos. With affordable assisted housing, Chicago's Ravenswood worked out to more than $200 a sq ft.

Just tossing some locks on doors and opening the cafeteria might be red meat for the NIMBYs out west, but that is not PSH in the least.

so are Minvillas.

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 2:40pm.

so are Minvillas.

Sink hole?

Submitted by Anonymous54 (not verified) on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 11:56pm.

So a sink hole runs like a fault line? So do I understand that if something is built on the sink hole on Teaberry IT COULD CAUSE THE SINK HOLE TO ACTIVATE? (or however it should be phrased?)Which would then run up to the Condos your parents live in? how big is it? Is that why that pool isn't being used?

wow.

Site Selection + Sinkholes = Fast Tracked

Submitted by whooshe65 on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 12:14pm.

In TDEC’s publication: “Subsidence and Sinkholes in East Tennessee”, 2001, Writer-Geologist Martin S. Kohl states:

“Construction can also trigger collapses by directing runoff into vulnerable area, or weakening the cover of an incipient collapse.”

“The collapse itself is usually more circular than elliptical, and commonly occurs at a site unrelated to man-made structures, unlike the trash pits described above. It may, however, be in a line with nearby older sinkholes and dotlines. The exception is when a collapse is triggered by the construction itself or associated runoff.”

This publication is available at:
http://tennessee.gov/environment/tdg/maps/pdf/sinkhole.pdf

So this means that even if a piece of property looks nice and flat, if construction starts, it is possible that it could “ACTIVATE” sinkholes somewhere else in the line of sinkholes in that area. Just ask the Meadows development. They currently have four units that have major structural problems with one unit already Condemned by the City and one more likely to be condemned soon. Oh, and by the way these units, directly border the Proposed Supportive Housing site on Teaberry lane. And the pool that sits on the Teaberry site has been closed for years, because of cracks in the bottom of the pool caused by; you guessed it, the sinkhole that it was built on.

If this site was picked because it “fits” the site selection criteria established by the Ten Year Plan folks, does that mean that the TYP folks want these SRO’s to be built on unstable ground? Does this make any sense to anyone? Is the City willing to take on the Liability of possible bodily injury of the SRO residents or damage to near buy private property?

Can anyone say: “Fast Tracked”

Sinkhole.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 1:09pm.

I just want to briefly address the sinkhole issue in this post.

This development is in its very earliest stages. Predevelopment work is just beginning. Part of the due diligence for any responsible developer is to assess the stability of the site for a potential development. That's where we are right now.

We've been made aware of the existence of a sinkhole on one of the parcels involved in the proposed PSH development at Teaberry. We don't yet know the extent of it, but if due diligence turns up that parts of the site can't support a building, then we'll plan accordingly. If the entire site's rendered unbuildable by whatever's going on underground, then the site's unbuildable. And that would mean that we would not attempt to build on it. Simple as that.

Thank you,
Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

In a previous life

Submitted by Sandra Clark on Thu, 2010/03/11 - 7:55pm.

when I was a Realtor, I sold a house on Gleason to a blind person. I've always regretted that. -- s.

The recent KNS article on

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:16am.

The recent KNS article on this subject mentions:

Still, city and county officials have seen some success with a new housing facility opening near Sutherland Avenue in December.

There are also plans to open more apartments in South Knoxville and near downtown.

I'm not familiar with a "housing facility" on Sutherland opening in December. In addition, how have they "seen some success" if it is not yet open?

I'm guessing the South Knoxville reference is for Flenniken and the downtown reference is for Minvilla.

A ref to "successfully" securing a site?

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:25am.

...how have they "seen some success" if it is not yet open?

Maybe this is a reference to TYP having simply secured a site?

With regard to their intended "scattered site" approach, some neighborhoods being asked to welcome the newcomers seem to feel that "virtue is insufficient temptation" (Mark Twain)?

It's right off of Sutherland.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 1:29pm.

It's actually on Cox Street, which is right off of Sutherland. WBIR did a story on it when it opened last September. Helen Ross McNabb developed it and operates it as PSH. It's got zero vacancy and is quite successful.

It's got zero vacancy and is

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 2:36pm.

It's got zero vacancy and is quite successful.

What metrics are you using to quantify success?

Success.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 6:13pm.

What metrics are you using to quantify success?

If a PSH resident is able to honor the terms of his or her lease and abide by the rules of the community put in place by the operator of the facility, then that person will retain his or her housing. Retention of housing is the main way we measure success.

We usually look at one- and two-year retention rates when we assess how we're doing overall with PSH. Nationally, annual retention rates run around 84%. Some PSH developments in Knoxville do better. Jackson Apts on Gay Street are above 90%. Obviously, Cox Street's only been in operation for a little over half a year. But I have been told that turnover there is extremely low. I believe it. PSH is, after all, a very effective model.

So that is the bottom-line metric. But a lot of benefit comes from that retention in PSH. Residents don't go to jail at anywhere near the same rate that they did when they were homeless. They have fewer visits to the ER because they don't get sick and injured as often. They are much better able to manage mental illness and addiction issues. All of that means that they cost the community much less than do their counterparts who are still living outdoors or in shelters.

Up to now, we've had to generalize to some extent about savings to the community, but that will change soon. We're beginning to study local cost data and compare individuals' consumption of services before and after they enter PSH. What we see so far reinforces the efficacy of the model.

Wow. sounds like your

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 9:39am.

Wow. sounds like your measurement of success in the TYP is only as successful landlords. What about the metrics for success on case management? Where are those metrics?

Are you telling us the TYP is ONLY concerned with housing? Not program?

Are you telling us the TYP is

Submitted by michael kaplan on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 1:38pm.

Are you telling us the TYP is ONLY concerned with housing? Not program?

that's the outstanding flaw in the concept. but i guess that's why this component is called housing first ...

Helen Ross McNabb developed

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 4:07pm.

Helen Ross McNabb developed it and operates it as PSH.

It seems that is one of the issues. Who will be operating the other planned PSH locations?

Also, maybe it's time to get Minvilla and Flenniken up and running with a proof of concept before continuing.

The concept is proven.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 6:27pm.

Also, maybe it's time to get Minvilla and Flenniken up and running with a proof of concept before continuing.

PSH has been operating in Knoxville for a couple of decades now, maybe more. Not on the scale necessary to meet the needs of people who are chronically homeless, but it's here, has been for a while, and is working. The biggest development in town that's straightup PSH is about half the size of Flenniken. The concept is well-proven. Everyone (the City, the service providers and the TYP) believe that it can scale with great success, and are committed to making that happen because that's the only way we're going to meet the need.

Helen Ross McNabb developed it and operates it as PSH.

It seems that is one of the issues.

I'm not sure why HRM owning and operating PSH would be an issue. They've operated a small PSH development in the 4th and Gill neighborhood for a long time. I believe the residents there are regarded as unobtrusive at worst, and good neighbors generally.

Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

They've operated a small PSH

Submitted by bizgrrl on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 6:34pm.

They've operated a small PSH development in the 4th and Gill neighborhood for a long time. I believe the residents there are regarded as unobtrusive at worst, and good neighbors generally.

That was my point. HRM is good at what they do. Who will be managing any new facilities?

What Concept is Proven?

Submitted by whooshe65 on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 1:18am.

Mr. Finley, the reality is that the McNabb facility is for families, not the Chronically Homeless Patients that the City of Knoxville's Ten Year Plan is targeting.

Permanent Supportive Housing for Disabled Homeless Patients has been around for at least 25 years in some form or another. And the results have been questionable at best.

Acording to HUD's Report from March 2006, Titled;
Predicting Staying In or Leaving Permanent Supportive Housing That Serves Homeless People with Serious Mental Illness

Housing Tenure of Permanent Housing Residents

Although it may be said that permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities is a long-term housing arrangement for a significant portion of permanent housing residents, this study suggests it is not a “permanent” housing arrangement for everyone. Analysis of three permanent housing entry cohorts between 2001 and 2003 in Philadelphia indicates that a significant portion of residents entering permanent housing at the same time left before two years of residence. If the discharge patterns of the 2001 cohort were representative of all permanent housing residents, then we may expect that only half of those entering permanent housing would be able to keep their residency for three years or more. More than ten percent, in fact, left within six months, and nearly a quarter left within the first year after entry. There is no basis upon which to adjudge the length of stay of study cohorts in Philadelphia different than that of permanent supportive housing residents elsewhere.

Now let’s look at the facts of the "Housing First" PSH initiatives around the country. To date, there are no studies that I have found that cover more than a 12-24 month period of analysis of the long term success rates of this program. Considering that the problem of "Chronic Homelessness" has been a factor in American life for well over 100+ years, in some form or another. I find it very hard to accept that in just over 9 years of implementation of these plans, starting with the Portland OR plan,that this approach has been or will be successful over an extended period of time. Especially using the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) type of housing format. Across the country, the typical SRO size is about 200 Square Feet that is the equivalent of a Room, 12' x 17'. SRO's have been used to House the Homeless for over 100+ years, and in many cities, they have been nothing more than revolving door facilities, rampant with Crime and Violence, used to justify spending Taxpayer dollars on unsuccessful plans to house the Homeless.

When I read the Ten Year Plan in Knoxville, and compare it to 10 other Ten Year Plans from around the country, including the two cited as the framework for Knoxville's plan, Seattle WA., and Portland OR. What I found in the Knoxville plan is the only one that focuses exclusively on the Chronically Homeless Disabled Patient population. Recognized as 10% of the total Homeless Population in Knoxville. This population is exclusively single Individuals that have multiple "Episodes" of homelessness over an extended period of time. This means that they have found or been provided housing before, multiple times, and for many reasons ended up back on the street. See HUD article above.

I just do not see how this approach is much different than what has not worked before. What the plan boils down to is that instead of requiring a Patient to complete Drug and Alcohol Detoxification, and to maintain their Medications to control their Mental Health issues, this plan puts Chronically Homeless Patients into "Housing First” and then sets up processes to provide for the types of on-going(40 Hours a week)of Case management, that they need to stay off the streets. Although, acceptance of these services by the Patients, is not a requirement of maintaining their Housed status. Meaning that they can continue to Drink, do Illegal Drugs, and not take their needed Prescribed Medications that control their mental illness, as they are moved into their new SRO unit.

Enough is enough, scrap the Ten Year Plan.

What concept is proven? This one.

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 9:48am.

But whooshe, you answer your own (rhetorical) question with the very first sentence from the report excerpt you share, here:

...it may be said that permanent housing for homeless people with disabilities IS a long-term housing arrangement for a significant portion of permanent housing residents...

It seems, then, that we shouldn't "scrap the Ten Year Plan," but rather focus our attemtion on how Knoxville/Knox County might improve on an already documented success rate for this "significant portion of permanent housing residents."

Let's turn our thoughts to how.

Afterthought...

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 9:50am.

And given that these Philadelphia data are seven to nine years old, maybe this program has already improved its success rate over the years since this study?

In any event, could you please share a link to this report, so that we might read it in its entirety? Thanks.

Nashville's TYP

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 12:43pm.

Nashville is a little ahead of us with implementing their Ten Year Plan and according to this article in the Nashville City Paper, things haven't gone so well.

All of Nashville's TYP PSH has been rehabbing existing structures instead of building new. Five years later, the most critical problem is a lack of support services. My biggest concern about Knoxville's plan is that our focus seems to be on building new and not enough focus has been on funding for case management. In my opinion, every PSH building ought to have a case manager living onsite.

I'd be interested in knowing what the differences between Knoxville's and Nashville's TYP are.

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/homelessness-no-end-sight

Homelessness: No end in sight
Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 10:45pm
By Lyda Phillips

Five years after Nashville adopted a 10-year plan to eliminate chronic homelessness in the city, the number of homeless has doubled and the city has fallen woefully short of its ambitious goals to create housing, offer services and improve the lives of the homeless.

In 2005, the then-new Metro Homelessness Commission released an ambitious Strategic Plan to End Chronic Homelessness in Nashville: 2005-2015. “Nashville currently has an inventory of 807 permanent housing opportunities that are targeted for homeless individuals,” the report said. “Fifty-six units are under development.”

The 2005 report estimated that Nashville needed 486 units each of new construction and renovated housing along with 972 rental assistance/subsidies — or a total of 1,944 units — at an estimated cost of nearly $40 million, and that was just for the chronically homeless.

After five years, the commission has 252 units of housing for homeless individuals, none of them new construction.

“Some might think that’s great, but [1,900] was the goal,” said Howard Gentry, former vice mayor and the original director of the homelessness commission. “As a community, as far as awareness, education and collaborative efforts, we’re light years from where we were five years ago. Unfortunately, in terms of housing, we’re way behind our goal.”

Support services are stretched thin, and a shortage of case managers is so crippling that only 400 homeless people have been housed, while more than 4,000 are now on Nashville’s streets every night. In 2005, the number of homeless in Nashville usually averaged about 2,000, Gentry said.

In my opinion, every PSH

Submitted by michael kaplan on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 4:00pm.

In my opinion, every PSH building ought to have a case manager living onsite.

that's precisely the reason this housing should be centralized. the idea of building 12 units here, 48 units there, for a population so in need of medical, social and community services, and without personal transportation, is ludicrous. the homeless problem was increasing before the economy tanked, and with no economic amelioration in sight, it will likely get worse.

Whose neighborhood under what

Submitted by metulj on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 4:03pm.

Whose neighborhood under what rationality? 37917 is at its carrying capacity for services.

Concentration

Submitted by Lisa Starbuck on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 4:06pm.

I totally agree that concentration is not the answer. With a supportive case manager living onsite, it means there is assistance available if needed to coordinate either delivery of services or transportation to needed services without having to put all the PSH in one location.

Agree, the issue is services

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 5:44pm.

"All of Nashville's TYP PSH has been rehabbing existing structures instead of building new. Five years later, the most critical problem is a lack of support services. My biggest concern about Knoxville's plan is that our focus seems to be on building new and not enough focus has been on funding for case management. In my opinion, every PSH building ought to have a case manager living onsite."

I agree completely.

"Housing First, services when we get around to it, if we get around to it." That is not what is being sold. But in Nashville and other places it is what is being delivered.

I am concerned after watching the Gene Patterson show today that the City has gone into bunker mentality. Bill Lyons made it very clear that this meeting Thursday is only to discuss site suitability. He called that fair game. Anything else is not fair game? Bill said more than once that the sinkhole and transportation issues are what the discussion is limited to.

Gene asked Bill more than once if the City was really listening. From today I think the answer is no. If we cannot talk about the crucial services then the City is indeed in bunker mentality.

I hope you will reconsider that Bill. I think it is a mistake to avoid discussing services. But that is the impression you gave today.

Services and supervision will be discussed

Submitted by Bill Lyons on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 6:25pm.

Mr. Nine. Thanks for pointing this out. I did not mean in any way to imply in the interview that services will not be discussed at length and that questions regarding those services are expected and appropriate. The Ten Year plan is based on the philosophy that housing is integral to the effective delivery of services. Support and supervision at the site are, then, of course critical.

From the Ten Year Plan.. “A lesson learned is that without the stability of permanent housing, supportive services alone will not yield sufficient results. It is equally important to realize that permanent housing alone will be equally unsuccessful, if not coupled with appropriate supportive services. The need for comprehensive supportive services is underscored by the Knoxville studies’ consistent findings that many individuals placed into housing without needed support simply recycle back into homelessness.“

This plan has represented the community's approach to dealing with chronic homelessness for five years. It is based on the hard work of a task force chaired by Dr. Roger Nooe, whose work on homelessness is very well respected. A lot of work has already been done to focus and coordinate the work of the homeless providers in the area. KARM is handling the emergency shelter. VMC is handling permanent supportive housing. They will fully explain their plans for supervision on site and accountability among those who live there.

Case Management Care

Submitted by Ron Peabody on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 11:37pm.

Dear Dr. Lyons,

According to the TYP –

“Clients to service staffing ratio
averaging 10:1, so formerly homeless
individuals are able to stay in housing
because support needs are being met”

So I take this to mean that this is the planned standard for Permanent Supportive Housing Case Managers that will be on staff at the proposed Teaberry Lane Site. So 48 residents will need 5 Case Managers per shift. With round the clock Case Management required, considering the Serious Mental Health, Drug and Alcohol Addiction, recovery and care needs of the Disabled Patients in residence. So 5 Case managers per shift, 3 shifts per day, 105 shifts per week, and 5460 shifts per year.

The national average for PSH Case Managers seems to be about $35,000.00. So if a Case Manager works an average of 40 Hours per week, or 5 shifts, that means that the Teaberry Lane Facility will require 21 Case managers, on full time staff. So 21 x $35,000.00 equals $735,000.00 per year of Case Management Staffing Costs for this site alone.

How will this expense be paid?
What happens if this money can’t be funded by County Grants and or HUD money?
Does this required care get cut back?
So if the "Support needs" are not being met, what happens to the Patients?

It is based on the hard work

Submitted by michael kaplan on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 10:52pm.

It is based on the hard work of a task force chaired by Dr. Roger Nooe, whose work on homelessness is very well respected.

i wish dr. nooe would appear at these public meetings. i've asked him about this and he said he wanted to step back. his input from a social work/research point of view would be invaluable ..

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 12:34am.

Michael said:

i wish dr. nooe would appear at these public meetings. i've asked him about this and he said he wanted to step back. his input from a social work/research point of view would be invaluable.

I agree, Michael. I'm just marginally acquainted with Dr. Nooe and Keith Richardson on the advisory board, and I'm better acquainted with the advisory board's (and CAC's) Calvin Taylor, my former neighbor here in Powell.

I'd much rather hear from any of these three than from some PR firm (which possibility Rachel says on the other thread she heard mentioned on WATE).

I'm not an adversary of the TYP so much as I just feel I missed a lot of previous discussion on the Plan. I remember hearing from people who didn't participate in the Knox County, One Question process that they felt this way when Knox Charter Petition, of which I was a part, began promoting a "fix."

I know the TYP folks wouldn't care to repeat our KCP mistakes--and paid "spin doctors" would be as big a mistake for them as paid signature gatherers were for us.

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 6:57pm.

Bill Lyons made it very clear that this meeting Thursday is only to discuss site suitability. He called that fair game. Anything else is not fair game? Bill said more than once that the sinkhole and transportation issues are what the discussion is limited to.

Some of you are making out like off-site case management translates into no on-site supervision of tenants at these proposed PSH facilities.

But surely these chronically homeless, many suffering from addiction and mental illness, are not to live unsupervised at these sites? If no one is to supervise their comings and goings, what, then, is the rationale for requiring that each facility have a single entrance point through which every tenant must enter and exit?

IF on-site supervision of tenants were to be so lacking, I would agree with you, Nine, that discussions taking place now should include some on safety protocols planned to benefit the neighbors

But before I jump the gun, how does TYP expect off-site case management and (presumably) on-site supervision to work together to simultaneously aid tenants and protect current residents? What thought has TYP given to improving on this promising 50%+ retention rate among PSH residents generally?

I need a better understanding on these points, which I expect TYP's advisory board has already vetted, before I can conclude whether they should also be rehashed at this upcoming meeting on just the sinkhole and transportation issues at the proposed Bearden site.

(And I need some examples of exisiting construction in Bearden that TYP considered, but had to reject. How did costs of their rehabs compare to costs of new construction at this proposed site? What were any other considerations that caused TYP to reject those existing sites? I think TYP would have been wise to answer these questions in their press release announcing Thursday's public forum. Now the meeting will likely run long--or else leave people disgruntled.)

EDIT: Sorry--it looks like I missed some recent comments on page 3 of this discussion (nature of on-site supervision, Teaberry site rejected, etc.) before making my post. It also looks like discussion has moved to the new thread on Teaberry's rejection. See you there.

I find it very hard to accept

Submitted by metulj on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 9:50am.

I find it very hard to accept that in just over 9 years of implementation of these plans, starting with the Portland OR plan,that this approach has been or will be successful over an extended period of time.

This is stunningly bad reasoning. You admit earlier that there are studies with shorter time frames out there. What do those studies say about short-term outcomes? That there isn't long wave time-series studies yet (because there can't be), you can't use that fact to dismiss PSH programs. You correctly point out that SRO facilities were bad, but those were of a different type than PSH. Read Paul Rollinson's work on these privately-owned SRO hotels. You are talking about a wholly different thing. You also cite that HUD report. OK. That's fine. But take it in its context. It was produced during the Bush administration, who were very invested is not spending money on these programs other than shunting cash to faith-based initiatives.

Success

Submitted by whooshe65 on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 1:49pm.

sorry posted it twice

This is stunningly bad reasoning

Submitted by whooshe65 on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 12:37pm.

This is a perfect example of the challenge that the TYP plan has in Knoxville. PSH is Permanent Supportive Housing. As stated, these programs have been around for years, and typically start with a detoxification program, followed by intensive Case Management, and continued with Housing placement, in either existing Low Income Housing, typically Section 8 housing, or specific SRO type dwellings. In this process, Case Management is ongoing to provide the follow support of the residents. Drug & Alcohol Free is a requirement for most of the standard PSH programs out there.

Here is the issue. The Knoxville TYP has specifically adopted a "Housing First" process.
From the Knoxville TYP-

1. Move People into Housing First
The most critical issue facing homeless people—
the lack of permanent housing—must be the first and most important issue to be addressed. The concept of housing first is considered both a philosophy and structure for the tenyear
plan. The concept itself is straightforward: if a chronically homeless person is able to quickly obtain stable, appropriate, permanent housing, then the issues of mental illness, chemical
addictions, education and employment become eminently more manageable. The housing first approach combines affordable, permanent housing with the support services necessary to
increase self sufficiency to remain in permanent
housing.

My point is this. I want the TYP folks, as they did in the Plan Document, to refer to this process as "Housing First" followed by modified PSH type programs. And I want them to be clear about the differences between the two. PSH used to describe the TYP initiatives is much different that historic PSH programs around the country. As I said in my last post, in a “Housing First” program, acceptance of these services by the Patients is not a requirement of maintaining their housed status. Meaning that they can continue to Drink, do Illegal Drugs, and not take their needed Prescribed Medications that control their mental illness, as they are moved into their new SRO unit.

Let the TYP folks know that we want them to tell the truth.

Almost forgot-

Submitted by whooshe65 on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 12:40pm.

I think that you missed the most important line from the Hud report:

"then we may expect that only half of those entering permanent housing would be able to keep their residency for three years or more."

This is why I question the validity of the 12 & 24 month studies out there.

I understood that, but you

Submitted by metulj on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 2:21pm.

I understood that, but you miss the point. 50% is better than 0%. That's the point.

Wordsmyth features you've

Submitted by ifyouaskmeornot (not verified) on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 8:46pm.

Wordsmyth features you've come to enjoy.

chronic
Browse the words alphabetically around "chronic"
See entries that contain "chronic"

Syllables: chron-ic

Part of Speech adjective
Pronunciation kra nihk
Definition 1. tending to a certain behavior or illness for a long time or continually.
Example a chronic drinker.
Synonyms inveterate (2) , habitual (1) , incessant , constant (2)
Similar Words confirmed , hardened , continual , lifelong
Definition 2. recurring often and long-lasting.
Example chronic back problems.
Synonyms persistent (2,3) , recurrent (1)
Similar Words unmitigated , successive , frequent
Definition 3. of disease, long in duration. (Cf. acute.)
Synonyms persistent (3) , prolonged {prolong (vt 1)}
Similar Words unmitigated , stubborn , lasting , constant , enduring , unrelieved {relieve (vt)} , lingering {linger (vi)}

Related Words ongoing , everlasting , habitual , persistent , dull

Derived Forms chronically, adv.

update on the Meadows

Submitted by Daniel2 (not verified) on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 12:55pm.

Just spoke with my dad on the phone and he told me that David Arning of the Southeastern Housing Foundation had an engineer at the Meadows this morning. The engineer will drill core samples Monday to find out how many sinkholes there are.

That is the kind of due diligence the Ten Year Plan does. After they buy an option for the land, after they find out on KnoxViews that our condos are falling in, then they examine the property. You are supposed to check the land out before you put an option on it.

Because of the City of Knoxville and the Ten Year Plan my folks have had to hire John King to protect them. This Ten Year Plan should be scrapped.

No wonder Haslam tried to fast track this. If Bill Haslam thinks the people of West Knoxville will vote for him for anything he is kidding himself.

Sinkholes again. Due diligence is part of the contract.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 1:59pm.

You are supposed to check the land out before you put an option on it.

The purchase contract for this property allows a Due Diligence period of 90 days. That's standard practice. I'm not aware of any developer who would invest in doing physical needs assessments, environmental or geotech studies prior to having an option on a piece of property.

The developer didn't find out about this issue on KnoxViews. A member of the community contacted the City and raised the issue, and we're grateful for that. That input is all part of the process of determining site suitability.

Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

Not so

Submitted by Daniel2 (not verified) on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 12:15pm.

"The developer didn't find out about this issue on KnoxViews. A member of the community contacted the City and raised the issue, and we're grateful for that. That input is all part of the process of determining site suitability."

No sir, you found out on Feb. 24th. You either forgot, or ignored the sinkhole. Either way it shows this process isn't a process at all.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/11/another-west-knoxville-site-pro...

* February 24, 2010
* 8:57 a.m.
* Suggest removal
* Reply to this post

robertfinley writes:

in response to fischbobber:

Actually, many more points than the one you brought up are incorrect. It is not actually permanent supportive housing as defined by the CSH guidelines. There are seven elements that define supportive housing and while four are at least debatable, the criteria that "All members of the tenant household have easy, facilitated access to a flexible and comprehensive array of supportive services designed to assist the tenants to achieve and sustain housing stability." is clearly not met.

In addition, the financial statements for the so-called non profit company that is to operate this facility have not been released and from the preliminary numbers being tossed around, it appears that taxpayers are going to end up holding the bag for a 500 to 750 dollar per square foot boondoggle.

Finally, the proposed development is being built on a sinkhole that currently has a swimming pool that the county has shut down because the earth is sucking it in.

Not a single person that I have been in contact with is opposed to the idea of helping any segment of the population that needs a hand up, but this proposal is nothing more than developers pushing through a poorly planned idea on a lazy populace on the theory that no one will actually go look at this plan to see if it makes sense. It doesn't.

There is currently a piece of property at the northeast corner of Morrell and Westland that is much better suited for this type of project. It is just as close to the neighborhood in question as the proposed property only it meets the CSH criteria for supportive housing.

Why don't we open up this process to public scrutiny and do this right?

Opposition to projects like the one proposed at Teaberry is legitimate, but it's not legitimate to forward that opposition anonymously through innuendo and outright falsehood. That's some of what you're doing here.

"...the criteria that "All members of the tenant household have easy, facilitated access to a flexible and comprehensive array of supportive services designed to assist the tenants to achieve and sustain housing stability." is clearly not met."

This assertion is false. These are precisely the services to which tenants will have easy, facilitated access. The

"...it appears that taxpayers are going to end up holding the bag for a 500 to 750 dollar per square foot boondoggle."

If the site indeed proves to be unbuildable, due to sinkholes or for any other reason, we won't build on it.

The proposed development will cost about the same as any other new multifamily construction in this market. Your figures are inflated by a factor of about six.

Your implication of illegitimacy on the part of the developer is baseless. Southeastern Housing Foundation is recognized as a nonprofit entity by the IRS. There's nothing "so-called" about it.

This process IS open to public scrutiny. We're in the process of bringing it through neighborhood meetings right now. The next one is tentatively scheduled to happen in mid-March. If you're connected with any of the surrounding neighborhoods, keep your eyes open for the announcement regarding the next meeting and make plans to attend.

Robert Finley
http://tenyearplan.org

this reminds me of the city

Submitted by michael kaplan on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:46pm.

this reminds me of the city doing an appraisal of the candy factory after city council was asked to vote on the project.

My questions or concerns are only about project costs.

Submitted by Bird_dog on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 2:32pm.

Perhaps Mr Finley can address this?

I trust TYP & VMC, who will provide case management, to select appropriate housing options for their clients. I understand that the residents will have whatever benefits are available to them to pay a subsidized rent. TYP and VMC funds pay for case management, which I believe to be the key to long-term success. And I believe that the overall cost to the community will be less than we currently pay for treatment, incarceration, and hospitalization for chronic homelessness.

However, I am confused about the role of Southeastern Housing. Are they the only developer for PSH? If not, what other developers are involved? Does Southeastern Housing have any other clients except for the TYP? If so, who? What incentive is there to develop decent, but lower-cost, housing options? What are the risks to the developer? They seem to have guaranteed occupancy for the units - and guaranteed funding which does not have to be repaid - and no incentive to keep the costs reasonable.

I was appalled at the true costs of the Hope VI projects, with their "custom-sized" doors and windows, which were sold at below cost to be affordable. Public money made up the difference. It's that "public money" that I want to be used better - whether it's tax credits, or set-asides from THDA. And I want to see existing multi-unit stock converted whenever feasible.

Homeless Sight!

Submitted by John Messner (not verified) on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 2:37pm.

I live in North Knoxville and we deal with the influx of homeless everyday as they leave the mission. They come through our neighborhoods and break into our homes and cars, rifle through the trash and panhandle the business customers away. The mission is the source of much financial abuse(director at KARM makes $118,000) and the homeless has destroyed our neighborhoods in North Knoxville.

Not only should the effort to curb homeless be stopped but should be downsized. I always say we need to CLOSE THE MISSION. They have such an impact on city services cleaning up the camp sites and all the trash they leave. Ambulance crews run the wheels of the bus answering calls their from fights, rapes and even murders at the campsites. They are certainly a sore on our community.

Recently, Sheriff Jones promised to quit bringing homeless inmates from other counties on taxpayer's dollars. They would meet Blount, Anderson, Loudon, Jefferson, Cocke and other Counties at the county line and bring them to the mission. That's what we call progress in North Knoxville.

Old North

Submitted by Pam Strickland on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:49pm.

I live in Old North Knoxville and consider my home one of the safest places that I have ever lived. I believe, Mr. Messner, that while your comments hold some truth that you have also highly exaggerated the state of your neighborhood. Doing so does not help your situation nor does it help any one else.

Exaggeration

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 12:28am.

I'd appreaciate it if we all kept exaggeration out of the conversation and just stuck to the facts.

Personally, I'm trying to learn about this issue that I assume will affect my own neighborhood soon enough. I just want to understand to what degree it's likely to be affected.

New construction vs. existing buildings

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 3:09pm.

Bird dog said: "And I want to see existing multi-unit stock converted whenever feasible."

Mr. Finley, this is the concern I raised earlier today, too.

It appears that TYP's original study leaned toward utilizing existing facilities, but that your group at some point, for some reason, changed course and began promoting (expensive) new construction.

Can you elaborate on if, when, and why that may have happened? Thanks.

Existing housing stock.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 7:19pm.

It appears that TYP's original study leaned toward utilizing existing facilities, but that your group at some point, for some reason, changed course and began promoting (expensive) new construction.

We haven't changed course in regard to existing housing stock, Tamara. We're always seeking suitable existing, non-historic housing stock, and there's no plan to stop doing so. Feasibility is a big issue with older properties, especially ones that weren't originally configured as 1br apartments. We also believe it's very important to be able to control the entry into PSH facilities.

New construction is not necessarily more costly than rehab. On the contrary. It's often less expensive, and it lets you develop a facility that is exactly what you need it to be. But that doesn't mean that we've moved beyond considering older housing stock and that we wouldn't seek to convert a building to PSH if it really made sense.

Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

New PSH off Sutherland

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 3:19pm.

Ah, thanks, Mr. Finley, for the explanation concerning the new facility off Sutherland. So this KNS quote...

Still, city and county officials have seen some success with a new housing facility opening near Sutherland Avenue in December.

...meant that the facility opened last December, not that it would open next December.

Was the project, then, new or existing construction? What process did TYP follow in involving that neighborhood's residents in the site selection and construction or retrofit? Thanks again.

I don't know what your KNS

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 7:27pm.

I don't know what your KNS citation refers to, Tamara. The only PSH I'm aware of off Sutherland is the one I mentioned on Cox, and that opened in September.

Cox Street is new construction. It was entirely developed by Helen Ross McNabb. I'm not sure how they engaged the surrounding neighborhood.

Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

Opportunity Lost

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 6:19pm.

Again we see another fast track resolution to stifle community input on a proposed PSH site for the mentally disabled and addicted. For the second consecutive time we see a site that has only the proper zoning be touted as being much more than it is. Last night on WBIR Jon Lawler said that the proposed Teaberry Lane site met all the “criteria”. Yet on WATE we learn that the site is very far from a bus stop and the patients have to walk a dangerous gauntlet without sidewalks or street crossings putting them in harms way and endangering every single person who drives a car on Gleason Road.

The Ten Year Plan could have gone to Lake Shore where there would be community support. A place that does meet the needed criteria of walkable access and services. In stead they chose to go to Teaberry Lane and fast track a City Council vote without a Council workshop. To further insult the community the Mayor’s office chose to call this vote a “conceptual vote”. What does that even mean? It is a vote that is just as binding as any other vote in City Council.

So what have we learned? That the Ten Year Plan chooses to exclude the community and fast track the site before any due diligence is performed. They wish to get City Council approval before they even find out if the site meets the needed criteria.

In addition to this we now know that the proposed site will possibly activate a sinkhole system that is already endangering the Meadows Condominium complex. This is not a fair and open process. It is a rigged political process that fast tracks the City Council vote before the details are known to the public. How can there be a vote before the facts of the site are known? What kind of government is that?

The Ten Year Plan as implemented does not allow community input or participation. It is the most expensive way to provide housing. It is not an open bid process. It requires new construction. Only one company is approved for construction. And the last two sites are far away from needed services so the patients must be transported to needed services or redundant services must be brought to them. The taxpayers had little say in the creation of the Ten Year Plan.

Why should we keep the Ten Year Plan?

A few corrections on issues of fact.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 8:16pm.

The Ten Year Plan as implemented does not allow community input or participation.

This whole thread originated with a post about a meeting that is designed specifically to solicit community input on the suitability of a proposed PSH site.

It is the most expensive way to provide housing.

The most expensive housing in town utilized with the greatest frequency by the most people who are chronically homeless is the Knox County Jail. A PSH unit? $540 per month. A jail cell for an inmate being treated in jail for MI? $170+ per day.

It is not an open bid process.

I don't want to presume that I know what you mean by this, but some of the funding that we use for development of PSH require bids for services like construction, architecture, etc. We can't just decide not to abide by these requirements.

It requires new construction.

Nope. Minvilla? Not new. Flenniken? Not new. Teaberry? New. Other properties we've considered have also been existing building stock, typically apartments.

Only one company is approved for construction.

Historically, TYP PSH projects have been bid competitively. Will that change? As long as we need public financing, it's hard to see how it could.

And the last two sites are far away from needed services so the patients must be transported to needed services or redundant services must be brought to them.

We took some PSH residents and some folks on the waiting list for it out to visit the site at Teaberry and talked about walking distances. It's a 6/10 of a mile walk to the bus stop, which might seem like a long way to me or you, but they were undaunted by it. The location was also close enough to places to shop and work. They were very pleased with the location. I think you're making assumptions, although I don't know what they are specifically, about how much access PSH residents will need to services that are delivered in specific places. Without knowing the specifics regarding the particular residents, there's no way to know how big an impact this would make on them. In any event, the only way to completely eliminate the need for such transport would be to create areas of concentrated housing and service delivery. Or institutions. As has been discussed elsewhere, that's simply not feasible.

The taxpayers had little say in the creation of the Ten Year Plan.

Many people contributed to the creation of the TYP, which was adopted by the Mayors of the City and the County in October 2005. Contributors included the TYP Task Force, members of which were appointed by the Mayors, I understand. There were many others associated with the creation of the plan through their involvement with the Homeless Coalition. Added to this long list were the Community Concerns Working Groups, which included interested members of the community. So the TYP was created with a very broad base of community input made by a lot of people from all over the place.

Robert Finley
http://knoxtenyearplan.org/

"We took some PSH residents

Submitted by fischbobber (not verified) on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 11:41pm.

"We took some PSH residents and some folks on the waiting list for it out to visit the site at Teaberry and talked about walking distances. It's a 6/10 of a mile walk to the bus stop, which might seem like a long way to me or you, but they were undaunted by it. The location was also close enough to places to shop and work. They were very pleased with the location. I think you're making assumptions, although I don't know what they are specifically, about how much access PSH residents will need to services that are delivered in specific places. Without knowing the specifics regarding the particular residents, there's no way to know how big an impact this would make on them. In any event, the only way to completely eliminate the need for such transport would be to create areas of concentrated housing and service delivery. Or institutions. As has been discussed elsewhere, that's simply not feasible."

What I find highly ironic about this passage is that you had the nerve to call me a liar and accuse me of innuendo passing in the News Sentinel thread.

I think considerably more detail than you've offered here would be necessary before one could comment, after all Bob's Package Store is only a four minute walk after you climb out of the hole.

response

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 12:28am.

"This whole thread originated with a post about a meeting that is designed specifically to solicit community input on the suitability of a proposed PSH site."

So? City Council will vote without even a Council workshop? That is fast tracking and it is deplorable. It is a complete disregard for the community and their rights. The meeting on March 18th is not a Council workshop. It is not televised. And it is not right to have a vote of this magnitude without a City Council workshop. Please, you are making it impossible for people to believe in the TYP when you allude that the meeting on the 18th is all that is needed.

"The most expensive housing in town utilized with the greatest frequency by the most people who are chronically homeless is the Knox County Jail. A PSH unit? $540 per month. A jail cell for an inmate being treated in jail for MI? $170+ per day."

$540 a month? Where does that number come from? And how many days is an inmate being treated in jail for Mental Illness? Inmates with Mental Illness are transferred out of the jail after some amount of time. They don’t reside there long.

"Nope. Minvilla? Not new. Flenniken? Not new. Teaberry? New. Other properties we've considered have also been existing building stock, typically apartments."

Yes, I should have also included "Historical restoration". So? The last two that have been proposed were new construction. You have shown only two methods. Neither of them cost effective. And in each method isn’t South Eastern Housing the owner of the property?

"I don't want to presume that I know what you mean by this, but some of the funding that we use for development of PSH require bids for services like construction, architecture, etc. We can't just decide not to abide by these requirements."

"Historically, TYP PSH projects have been bid competitively. Will that change? As long as we need public financing, it's hard to see how it could."

Southeastern Housing Foundation appears to be the only firm to do the work. How is that a bidded process open to fair competition?

"We took some PSH residents and some folks on the waiting list for it out to visit the site at Teaberry and talked about walking distances. It's a 6/10 of a mile walk to the bus stop, which might seem like a long way to me or you, but they were undaunted by it."

Good grief. It is a death trap for pedestrians. And this increase in pedestrians endangers every automobile driver on that road. You're suppose to help the homeless patients not endanger them. The last thing we need on Gleason Road is a greater public safety hazard. And seriously, what does it matter that they are willing to accept risking their lives? They probably think they will get micro-bus service like you all promised at Debusk Lane. Have you walked it?

"Many people contributed to the creation of the TYP, which was adopted by the Mayors of the City and the County in October 2005. Contributors included the TYP Task Force, members of which were appointed by the Mayors, I understand. There were many others associated with the creation of the plan through their involvement with the Homeless Coalition. Added to this long list were the Community Concerns Working Groups, which included interested members of the community. So the TYP was created with a very broad base of community input made by a lot of people from all over the place."

There are over 400,000 people in this county. How many of them "contributed"? A few dozen? I don’t recall a series of public meetings. The people did not have a voice and you do yourself a disservice when you allege that the incredibly small number of people who were consulted were significant. Seeing how each of these PSH has be a done deal on a fast track, maybe this should go to a referendum? Your program is out of control.

The last time we discussed this I spoke of the need for some "good will" from the TYP. This is good will? You keep picking sites that create a public safety hazard and denying it. Then you fast track them. This site was obviously built on fill. I went by there yesterday. It was obvious why no one built on it for twenty years. This idea that you do due diligence after the City Council vote is unacceptable. And it is completely unfair to the community. People who used to believe in the TYP now want to see it redesigned from scratch or eliminated. You can see that in this thread.

I understand it is your job to answer objections but this Teaberry site has seriously damaged the credibility of the TYP. And Jon Lawler’s interview on WBIR last night shows a disconnect and denial that makes anyone paying attention question whether he can be trusted. This site does not meet the criteria and to say it does is not honest. And while Jon Lawler said that he stood in front of a still incomplete Minvilla. That image speaks volumes.

Will not attend list

Submitted by Rick H. (not verified) on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 7:56pm.

The following elected representatives have declined to attend the March 18th meeting at the Arnstein Center:

Mayor Bill Haslam
Mayor Mike Ragsdale
Knox County Commissioner 4th District Finbarr Saunders (this District)

On "Tennessee This Week" Bill Lyons speaks about the Teaberry site. Sunday at noon on WATE.

Reasons?

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2010/03/12 - 8:28pm.

Did these folks just decline? Or do they have a conflict?

It does make a difference, at least to me.

Conflicts

Submitted by whooshe65 on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 8:27am.

Mayor Haslem, had a Conflict.
Mayor Ragsdale had a Conflict.
Commissioner Saunders will be out of town.

Teaberry Lane on TV

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Sat, 2010/03/13 - 11:01am.

http://www.tennesseethisweek.com/

Gene Patterson talks with Bill Lyons about the Teaberry Lane issues. Some time is devoted to the concept of "done deals" and mistrust.

Especially significant is at minute 4:10 where Bill speaks of a covenant with the community to do no harm to the community.

The sinkhole is mentioned as are concerns about transportation.

On broader scale the concept of the Ten Year Plan is discussed.

In the last five minutes of "Tennessee this Week" local PR executives George Korda and Mike Cohen discuss the image problems the Ten Year Plan has had and the challenges the City faces with the Teaberry Lane issues.

It doesn't work, I know

Submitted by David Wallace (not verified) on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 4:36pm.

I saw the public notice at the Weigel's on Gleason Road and called some friends trying to find out about this. I was told to come here to this website to find out.

I am appalled at the stories that are being told here. I work in telecom and have to move often. My last home was Cincinnati, Ohio. We have learned the hard way that "housing first" without proper services doesn't help the addicts and creates an increase in crime in the area where the PSH is.

Where is any discussion about services? It is all about housing first.

http://knoxtenyearplan.org/strategies/

http://knoxtenyearplan.org/faq/

Without services and a requirement towards abstinence this is a bad joke. It is wrong to enable addicts and it is dangerous. Don't let them put untreated addicts into our community. These people don't understand the determination of the addict to maintain their habit. A disability check from the government will cover rent and food. It won't cover the habit.

This looks too much like what I have already suffered with in Cincy. What exactly are the services? Are there full time personal on site? What drug and alcohol programs are there? Are they mandatory? From what I read at the Ten Year Plan this is "trust us" we're professionals. Been there, done that. It doesn't work.

SROs by any other name ...

Submitted by AnonymousOnTheRun (not verified) on Sun, 2010/03/14 - 6:01pm.

In Atlanta, I experienced a similar situation except the planners thought it would be a brilliant idea to turn the old county jail into an SRO. No, really.

So by that standard, a condemned piece of land should be another great choice to house the chronically homeless.

That thinking is fundamentally flawed imho.

Bum rushing the project - what's that all about?

Services and Supervision

Submitted by Ron Peabody on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 9:05am.

Dr. Lyons,

After sleeping on your "Services and Supervision will be Discussed", post from yesterday,
http://www.knoxviews.com/node/13264#comment-89891post
a few things came to mind.

1) What agency will be responsible for providing the on-site Case Management for the Teaberry Site?

2) Will all types of needed counseling be provided on site, such as Drug and Alcohol Counseling? My understanding is that the most effective delivery system for this type of service is in group settings, and often times with the ongoing participation and support of Family and Friends. Such programs as AA or NA are most often recognized as the most effective type of recovery programs. Will these services be provided on site, or will they be provided off-site?

3) The 2008 Nooe Study states”

“The Knoxville studies have consistently found that approximately 50% of the homeless individuals surveyed had been treated for emotional problems.”

So if 50% of all the Homeless surveyed have been treated for Mental Illness, how many of the Homeless Patients proposed for the Teaberry Lane site, will fall into this category?
How will the needed Mental Health counseling be provided? Will this also be done by the on-site, Case Managers, or will it be done off-site?

Our Community wants and needs to know what the term "Services" means, when it applies to the Teaberry Lane Site.

Thank you,
Ron Peabody

The West Town traffic area is

Submitted by Joe328 on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 1:58pm.

The West Town traffic area is already a high crime area. Some of you need to check with KPD on the number of homicides in that area for the last 10 years.

site called off?

Submitted by Daniel2 (not verified) on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 4:14pm.

My Dad called and said he heard the Teaberry Lane site was pulled from consideration because of the sinkhole.

Teaberry Lane site eliminated - soil concerns

Submitted by Bill Lyons on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 4:33pm.

The Teaberry Lane location has been eliminated from consideration due to soil conditions and sinkhole issues. The developer decided not to pursue building on the site after reviewing materials from his geotech analysis. The City and the TYP have been aware of possible soil issues since late last week and concur with the developer's decision.

The community has requested that the meeting planned for Thursday evening at 7pm at the Arnstein Jewish Community Center take place as scheduled. Representatives of the City and the Ten Year Plan will attend to discuss the program and answer questions from citizens. Despite the fact that this site has not proved to be suitable, this is a good opportunity to make clear what the program is and explain our commitment to the scattered site approach. It is also a great opportunity to listen to citizen concerns about supportive housing and the siting process.

Confirmed.

Submitted by Robert Finley on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 4:34pm.

Confirmed.

MPC, create a Permanente Supportive Housing Zone Classification

Submitted by buttorfly on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 5:38pm.

The Ten Year Plan Representatives appear to be chasing their tails. The entire process is flawed. MPC needs to designate a zoning that is suitable for housing people in the community with mental disabilities and addiction problems. Many of these folks are on medications and have special requirements that involve oversight and must be supervised to make sure they take their medications. There should be a type of medical zoning created by MPC for this type of supervised patient housing. Just multi-family zoning is not sufficient. A Knox County Commissioner needs to present a resolution for MPC to study and create a zoning for this type of residency.

Let’s fix the process and procedure and make a compatible zoning before rushing out and tying up a piece of multi-family zoned property, and rushing it through the legislative branch before the citizens have a chance to participate. A zoning change would give citizens plenty of notice to participate in the process as well as making sure the site is the right fit for the program.

MPC needs to designate a

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 8:09pm.

MPC needs to designate a zoning that is suitable for housing people in the community with mental disabilities and addiction problems. Many of these folks are on medications and have special requirements that involve oversight and must be supervised to make sure they take their medications. There should be a type of medical zoning created by MPC for this type of supervised patient housing. Just multi-family zoning is not sufficient. A Knox County Commissioner needs to present a resolution for MPC to study and create a zoning for this type of residency.

This is a non-starter. Such zoning would be discriminatory, and therefor illegal.

Exactly. This is what zoning

Submitted by metulj on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 8:13pm.

Exactly. This is what zoning is NOT supposed to do.

MPC AGENCY OVERVIEW

Submitted by buttorfly on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 9:51pm.

The Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) was established in 1956 by Knoxville and Knox County as the agency responsible for comprehensive county-wide planning and administration of zoning and land subdivision regulations and remains so today, except for the town of Farragut.

MPC prepares and recommends zoning ordinances and maps to the Knox County Commission and Knoxville City Council.

Development Services:
Zoning Code Amendment

Discriminatory?

Submitted by buttorfly on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 9:40pm.

How so? The name Metropolitan Planning Commission name is self explanatory. MPC is there to PLAN for the protection of the community. Do these folks deserve less. All residential areas are in PR (planned residential) zones nowadays. The old R1 and R2 zones are no longer an option. There should be planning that goes into the zone for Multi-family Permanente Supportive Housing. This zoning would be for the safety of the chronically homeless patients as well as the citizens they live among. There are medical concerns for emergency services as well as concerns as to the proximity to public transportation and sidewalks. Separation from school and day care as well as liquor stores should be stipulations in the zoning. This separation exists in zones now and is not considered discriminatory. Do you know how bad it would be for a citizen that might hit and injure one of these patients because of bad lighting at night or insufficient sidewalks or traffic controls? Didn’t this just happen in town last week? Do you have no concern for the safety of these citizens?

As to this being a non-starter, you may be a bit late.

See Village of Euclid, Ohio

Submitted by metulj on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 10:09pm.

See Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. You are way off on this and Rachel is correct.

Fair Housing Act

Submitted by Linda Rust (not verified) on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 10:11pm.

Because the definition of chronic homelessness includes disability status, the chronic homeless are a ‘protected class.’ Other protected classes include: race, ethnicity, religion, gender, familial status, physical disability and age. According to the U.S. Department of Justice website, the Fair Housing Act prohibits municipalities and other local government entities from making zoning or land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities.

Linda is correct. As she

Submitted by Rachel on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 11:22pm.

Linda is correct. As she said (and I said) such zoning is discriminatory and therefore illegal. MPC couldn't do what you suggest if it wanted to.

Metulj, Euclid isn't really on point. That's the case that did establish that zoning is a legitimate police power of the state, but it had nothing to do with discrimination.

And buttorfly, you probably don't know this, but I'm an MPC Commissioner, so I'm aware of what MPC does.

And just because I'm advocating following the law does not mean I have no concern for the safety of Knox Countians.

SRO Zoning Reality Check

Submitted by Ron Peabody on Mon, 2010/03/15 - 11:34pm.

Dear All,

These are just a few of the many examples of Cities or Communities around the Country, that have delt with or are dealing with Zoning Ordinances for SRO Developments,

Step back, do some research, and what you will find is that there are many types of what I would call SRO Zoning Ordinances or SRO Zoning Restrictions, all over the Country.

How do the TYP folks know what the Citizens of Knoxville and Knox County expect, if there is no Zoning guidance, other than Low to Mid Density Multi-Family Residential?

Please read on-

From Sonoma County California-
www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/housing/sros.pdf

In San Francisco, the home of the Modern SRO-
www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/ordinances07/o0116-07.pdf

This is the most interesting. This is an SRO Zoning ordinance that was pushed for by a Local Catholic Group, called St. Peter’s Place. Because they needed to fulfill their mission to provide housing to the Homeless. www.charmeck.org/Planning/ZoningOrdinance/ZoningOrdCityChapter00TableofC...

Lets keep the Law Suit chatter to a minimum and lets deal once and for all with the Suitability of Sites and what the Critieria is for PSH-SRO's, based on Community involvement and thoughtfull Planning.

When you run across an

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 12:08am.

When you run across an ordinance that confines homeless people to a particular zone, please post it.

Homeless people are a protected class. You cannot confine them per se to any kind of zone, as buttorfly was suggesting. You CAN confine group homes to certain kinds of zones, which the City and County zoning ordinances already do.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 8:18am.

"Homeless people are a protected class. You cannot confine them per se to any kind of zone, as buttorfly was suggesting. You CAN confine group homes to certain kinds of zones, which the City and County zoning ordinances already do."

I don't understand. I thought the disabled were a protected class. Are homeless also?

Even as a protected class, why does that exclude zoning? Are you really suggesting as a MPC member that drug addicts that receive housing and are not required as part of their lease to attend drug addiction counseling and maintain sobriety should be allowed to be housed next to a daycare center? Is that what you are saying?

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 8:50am.

Are you really suggesting as a MPC member that drug addicts that receive housing and are not required as part of their lease to attend drug addiction counseling and maintain sobriety should be allowed to be housed next to a daycare center?

I don't *think* this is the case, is it? Just because the TYP calls for "housing first" doesn't mean covenants of this sort don't follow next, does it?

My assumption has been that the "housing first" approach just juggles some of the steps to end chronic homelessness, not that it omits some of them.

.

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 9:44am.

"I don't *think* this is the case, is it? Just because the TYP calls for "housing first" doesn't mean covenants of this sort don't follow next, does it?"

Good question. Maybe we can find out Thursday.

At the Strang Center meeting for the Debusk Lane site Jon Lawler said there is no lease requirement for sobriety. That was then. Who knows what the answer is today. But don't worry, they are hiring a PR firm.

Ask the question a different way. What is wrong with having a lease requirement that requires substance abuse counseling and sobriety within six months with drug testing every month to insure sobriety? Why is that a bad thing? There is a long line of people who desire this housing. Why shouldn't sobriety be a requirement?

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 11:14am.

I would expect to learn that such a lease requirement is legal. I know, for example, that Section 8 supportive housing is not open to prospective tenants who have felony convictions.

I understand and appreciate the "housing first" approach, as it would seem to best ensure tenants' subsequent victory over substance abuse.

I do think, though, that some restriction concerning tenants' drug and alcohol use--subsequent to their moving in, I mean-- would also be necessary to their becoming victorious.

SURELY we'll find that the TYP advisory board agrees?

the false alchemy of statistics

Submitted by Anonymously Nine on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 12:34pm.

"I do think, though, that some restriction concerning tenants' drug and alcohol use--subsequent to their moving in, I mean-- would also be necessary to their becoming victorious.

SURELY we'll find that the TYP advisory board agrees?"

I doubt they agree. The Seattle Plan is being touted by our local Ten Year Plan people. Locals are saying the plan in Seattle works. Several current and former City Council members are speaking the mantra that the Seattle Plan will save us all. They sound like pod people.

Does the Seattle Plan work? You can extrapolate numbers to prove anything. The idea is that chronic alcoholics and drug addicts cost big money in jail and emergency room costs that taxpayers have to pay for. In Seattle those cost are allegedly $86,062 a year per chronic alcoholic or drug addict. The services cost per year are $13,440 a year per chronic alcoholic or drug addict in Permanent Supportive Housing. So Seattle makes a profit of $72,622 a year? Sounds like alchemy. Or statistics.

And you see if you don't use housing first, then the chronic alcoholic or drug addict won't apply for the program. So the important point is to note who the decider is. That would be the chronic alcoholic or drug addict.

Does that make sense to anyone?

http://www.saprp.org/m_press_larimer033109.cfm

“These findings suggest that stable housing provided to people who are still drinking and addicted to alcohol can reduce their use of crisis services and ultimately their consumption of alcohol,” Larimer said, noting that virtually every person invited to participate had agreed to enroll. The study also notes that restrictions on the consumption of alcohol in a housing environment may well prevent those most in need from accepting help."

What we have not heard from the Ten Year Plan is what the needed services for the PSH patients are. Who pays for them. Whether they should be a requirement of the lease. At what point results, i.e. sobriety, should be required. Based on the discussion at the Strang center there are no requirements. You may not agree with that approach. I don't.

This idea that the drug addict is the decider doesn't wash. We have homeless families that need permanent housing. Rewarding the behavior of alcoholics and drug addicts by giving them permanent housing without requirements while homeless families have to stay in shelters doesn't wash either.

While we are extrapolating numbers, how much does it cost for services to house 1,300 homeless individuals that need services? At the local number of $15,300 that would be $ 19.9 million dollars. At the Seattle number of $13,440 that would be $17.5 million dollars. Hopefully not all of the 1,300 need services that cost that much.

What do we really know? We know we are writing blank checks. We don't know how much the services cost. We don't know who needs them. We do know it is up to the alcoholic or drug addict to want to seek treatment. And that has been kept quite. Both the Knoxville New Sentinel and WBIR are biased and slanted in their reporting on these issues. Other than here on KnoxViews and WATE there isn't open, honest, and diverse discussion.

The community has had almost zero say in this plan. The community should know that other experts state that alcoholics and drug addicts should be stabilized before being given permanent supportive housing. But no one is talking about those experts. The science is settled. Or is it?

I gave the Ten Year Plan people the benefit of the doubt on Debusk Lane because the issue is real and it is very important to all of us. After Teaberry lane that patience is gone. It is time for real substantive answers. No more PR. The Seattle Plan is not the only plan and it is time for a real discussion. The community has a say how this should be done.

It is time for public forums and decisions to be made. And it is time to understand this is a state wide issue. We cannot do this alone. And according to the 2008 Nooe study 49% of the homeless in Knox County are from outside the state of Tennessee. What ever we are doing, it isn't working.

You are deranged.

Submitted by metulj on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 12:40pm.

You are deranged.

Touting the Seattle Plan

Submitted by whooshe65 on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 11:35pm.

Anonomously Nine,

I am realy not sure about how efective the Ten Year Plan is in Seattle.

In 2010, worse will come. King County, at the close of this year,reduced human services funding by 46%. Youth shelter funding was eliminated. Food banks funding was slashed to zero at a time of record demand. The state budget crisis promises disaster. General Assistance for the Unemployable, the State Housing Trust Fund, drug treatment
funding, and Basic Health Care are all to be eliminated.

Go to the Article with this Link:
http://jeffgreer.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/declaration-of-a-state-of-emer...

If this is what the Citizens of Knoxville can expect from the TYP, I think it's time to review the whole plan. Maybe we should start with several Forums, so the Tax paying Citizens of Knoxville can finally have a say in this plan.

Wake up Knoxville, get involved. Be at the Meeting Thursday, March 18th, at the Arnstein Center at 7:00PM. At least it's a start.

the following paragraph from

Submitted by michael kaplan on Wed, 2010/03/17 - 11:43am.

the following paragraph from the seattle report sums it up in a nutshell. dr. nooe wrote similarly in his reports on the homeless in knox county.

The true causes of homelessness – rent increases, gentrification, evictions, and the failure of the market to provide affordable housing – aren’t dealt with, measured, or touched. For every unit of affordable housing produced under the plan, three to four have been lost to market forces.

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Wed, 2010/03/17 - 12:59pm.

Michael quoted:

"The true causes of homelessness – rent increases, gentrification, evictions, and the failure of the market to provide affordable housing – aren’t dealt with, measured, or touched. For every unit of affordable housing produced under the plan, three to four have been lost to market forces."

I hear you, Michael, but with regard to the chronically homeless person, I suspect the more formidable enemy lives within, not without?

The true causes of

Submitted by edens on Wed, 2010/03/17 - 3:54pm.

The true causes of homelessness – rent increases, gentrification, evictions, and the failure of the market to provide affordable housing.

Remind me Mike, when did you move to Old North? And who lived in that house before Charlie Richmond rehabbed it?

The true causes of

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Wed, 2010/03/17 - 7:19pm.

The true causes of homelessness – rent increases, gentrification, evictions, and the failure of the market to provide affordable housing...

Um. It's not all the market's fault. Lack of affordable housing is only one factor contributing to homelessness. Other factors include:

transportation issues
decline in public assistance
divorce
domestic violence
drug and alcohol abuse
illness
job loss
lack of child support
lack of affordable housing
low wages
mental illness
natural disaster/fire
physical disabilities
post traumatic stress
poverty
roommates
severe depression
tragedy

As one of my family members so eloquently likes to say, "no where is it written in granite that life is fair." The list above makes that point. This family member started over at age 50 with the clothes on her back, leaving a very violent marriage. She clawed her way back, scraped and saved, and retires this year, comfortably. She didn't sit around waiting for someone to do it all for her. And she didn't end up homeless.

There are many complex causes to homelessness. I sure hope that Knoxville choosing such a narrow path of building housing projects for the chronic homeless works. I doubt it, however, because I am afraid that so many more will slip through the cracks while we fiddle with these silly construction projects.

Exactly. Not everybody has

Submitted by metulj on Wed, 2010/03/17 - 7:22pm.

Exactly. Not everybody has what it takes. Others have the imperative to help. But in Tea Party America, it is evil to help people. EVIL.

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Wed, 2010/03/17 - 9:55pm.

What I meant to say earlier is that with regard to the chronically homeless person, I suspect "the more formidable enemy lies (not lives) within, not without?"

That is, for this particular type of homeless person, it is likely addiction and/or mental illness that is a root cause, not market forces?

But yes, with regard to homeless people more generally, market forces are among the many possible root causes.

I should add here that the

Submitted by michael kaplan on Thu, 2010/03/18 - 12:37am.

I should add here that the "market" has been distorted by subsidized housing for the affluent. The Candy Factory, for example, received $1.4 million in tax-increment financing - 15 years' worth of free municipal and county services - to subsidize the construction of $200,000+ condominiums which, I understand, provide housing for "rich kids" (to quote someone familiar with the demographics). That building could have provided affordable "workforce" housing to center-city workers now living in inadequate (shall I use the word slum?) conditions in Fort Sanders, North and South Knoxville.

Instead of obsessing over

Submitted by metulj on Thu, 2010/03/18 - 7:56am.

Instead of obsessing over history and the loss of your free meeting place for your club, why not explain your anti-immigrant comments?

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 11:27am.

Nine asked:

I don't understand. I thought the disabled were a protected class. Are homeless also?

Nine, I note that Linda Rust explained that the chronically homeless are considered to be disabled, but that Rachel implies simply that the homeless are considered to be.

Ladies, is there some distinction as to which group the law considers to be "disabled," or does the law consider both groups "disabled?" Thanks.

Linda is correct - I've been

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 2:10pm.

Linda is correct - I've been a bit sloppy in using my terms.

Are you really suggesting as

Submitted by Rachel on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 2:08pm.

Are you really suggesting as a MPC member that drug addicts that receive housing and are not required as part of their lease to attend drug addiction counseling and maintain sobriety should be allowed to be housed next to a daycare center? Is that what you are saying?

I didn't say anything SHOULD happen. I said that a protected class can't be confined to a particular zone.

Your habit of putting words in people's mouths is getting a bit threadbare. You need a new act.

Definitions

Submitted by Linda Rust (not verified) on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 11:58am.

Chronic Homeless

The chronically homeless as defined by the federal government are “homeless individuals with a disabling condition (substance abuse disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, or chronic physical illness or disability) who have been homeless either continuously for one whole year, or four or more times in the past three years” (U.S. Dept. of HUD, 2006).

Homeless

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency charged with addressing urban homelessness, defines a homeless person in The United States Code, Title 42, Chapter 119, Subchapter I., as “an individual who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and an individual who has a primary nighttime residence that is: a supervised, publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); an institution that provides temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.”

Protected Class Status vs Behavior

Submitted by Linda Rust (not verified) on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 12:40pm.

There is a difference between protected class and behavior.

Discrimination against someone (in housing, employment, etc.)because of their disabling condition, race, national origin, sex, age, familial status, etc. is against the law because these are protected classes as defined by the federal government.

Discrimination against a person because of documented past criminal behavior may not be against the law, because being a criminal is not a protected class.

Likewise, if someone's behavior violates a lease agreement (that is legal and applied equally to everyone), it is not discriminatory to evict on those grounds.

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 5:27pm.

There is a difference between protected class and behavior.

Discrimination against someone (in housing, employment, etc.)because of their disabling condition, race, national origin, sex, age, familial status, etc. is against the law because these are protected classes as defined by the federal government.

Discrimination against a person because of documented past criminal behavior may not be against the law, because being a criminal is not a protected class.

Likewise, if someone's behavior violates a lease agreement (that is legal and applied equally to everyone), it is not discriminatory to evict on those grounds.

Thanks again, Linda.

So, if I understand you correctly, imposing on PSH residents in those facilities a ban on alcohol would likely be illegal, because the same such ban cannot be imposed on the general population, in residences they either own or lease?

Hmm. This is new terrain for me, but I suppose your interpretation makes sense.

It sure will up the decibel level relating to people's questions on how case management is to be delivered, though...

A lease can legally have some behavior agreements...

Submitted by Bird_dog on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 7:14pm.

that would not apply to the general public. A landlord might prohibit smoking, for instance.

*

Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 9:45pm.

Yes, and KARM can require attendance from the chronically homeless at their evening worship service in order that they may receive dinner and a bed, too.

If I understand what Linda's saying, though, the government can't make such requirements of particular classes of citizens in order that they may receive certain government services.

IS that (something like) what you're saying, Linda???

I am a UT Social work grad. I

Submitted by Janet McDonald (not verified) on Tue, 2010/03/16 - 1:17pm.

I am a UT Social work grad. I have long worked with homeless issues. Dr. Nooe and others spent years working on this. This ten year plan approach is by far the most widely accepted. It was discussed widely in the media. How many of you newly minted experts with patently ridiculous ideas like just taking over Baptist hospital paid a nickle's worth of attention this was discussed. A key component of the whole thing is scattering the sites. Bob Becker, the most progressive person on city council is totally behind that concept.

This program is a political no win for Mayor Haslam to push. Do you think he gains a thing by taking on a cause like this and especially by going west and opening up Lakeshore for discussion. What gets me is a move by a Knoxville political leader to put in on the line to do something for the poorest among us, the most needy among us is second guessed and trashed on what is a progressive board. Many of you are more concerned that someone can lay across the sidewalk than you are helping him get a place to live and a way to live with dignity.

This effort may not be perfect but it sure is an effort to do the right thing. I supported Madeine Rogero and will in the next election. If you had told me that Bill Haslam would be spending his time on the middle of the city and for the first time trying to help the homeless get into homes I would have said you were nuts. If you would have told me that it would be trashed at a place where so-called progressives gather I would have thought you were insane. I have a suggestion. Next time if you actually interested in a topic like homelessness try paying some attention when progressive experts like Dr. Nooe dedicate their lives to finding the best way. Try to really learn about. Then go to the peanut gallery if you really must.

Thank you,

Janet McDonald