"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?

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.

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

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.

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.

(link...)

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 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?

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

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.

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

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

"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.

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?

"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 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?

"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.

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.

...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 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.

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
(link...)

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

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.

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
(link...)

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
(link...)

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
(link...)

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

It does make a difference, at least to me.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Hi Janet,

You should note that many of the posters on this issue are not folks who post here on a regular basis.

Janet:

It is you who needs to "really learn about" this process. Myself, I have been deeply troubled by the amount spent in public and private dollars going directly to developers in the name of the homeless, and not to the homeless. How much over the last five years has been going to developers, and how much has been directed toward program and case management?

You've clearly not been paying attention. How many chronic homeless are currently being housed at Minvilla? Exactly zero. How many are planned? Only 57. At a cost of over $7 million, or $123,000 for each unit, the fact that you are not embarrassed by that says a great deal.

If we have between 800-1000 chronically homeless, and it takes over 4 years to build housing for 57, perhaps you can then understand why people are so pissed about it. At that rate, it will take $122 million to provide Housing First! for all of Knox County's chronic homeless.

If you don't realize this is developer pork, you're not paying attention.

As has been discussed previously, there are currently around 91 multifamily properties for sale in Knox County, many for a whole lot less for a comparable number of units as Minvilla. But whether it is jamming together a historic rehab like Minvilla or Flenniken, or building from the ground up at Lovell Road or Teaberry, someone's priorities are screwed up. PSH should be cost-effective and quick--that is, if you're doing it for the chronic homeless. Not multi-year, multi-million dollar boondoggles. But just as developers have done for over 30 years in Knoxville, they are quick to take the free-federal funds--whether Section 8 housing or Community Development block grants--and make tidy sums off the plight of the less fortunate--even when they do it under the auspices of a nonprofit.

As far as other connections, though, the Southeastern Housing Foundation -- the designated developer for 10-Year Plan housing projects -- was created by Lawler-Wood as a nonprofit entity eligible for government grants and other subsidies, Jon Lawler explained.

" 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."

A lot of failed social programs from the 1960's were as you say widely accepted. They destroyed millions of lives. The idea of scattering the sites hasn't been proven to do anything other than distribute the problem.

I was solidly for Bill Haslam for Governor until this outrage. Now having read the Ten Year Plan I see Bill is a liberal who won't admit who and what he is. It takes more than a red umbrella to be a Republican. This is a very bad plan. Only people who are clean and sober should get housing. This money should go to housing for families with children. No more social experiments. Let's help the people with children first.

Maybe the TYP people can provide more specifics as to how the homeless selection process will work for these sites. 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?

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

Exactly, Bizgrrl.

On the one hand, I agree that TYP hasn't been very forthcoming concerning these prefectly valid questions.

On the other hand, though, too many people have already become opposed to this "scattered site" approach BEFORE having any information as to how TYP plans to deliver case management and what controls they have in mind to maintain the safety/integrity of neighborhoods.

I hope we see some progress on this front tonight.

It think it went well, but I am a bit biased to provide a report. It lasted from a bit after 7 until after 9. Lots of questions for sure and lots of dialog. It was quite civil and reflected well on the community and the neighborhood leaders. There was a very good crowd. I know we changed a few minds and I know others remain unconvinced about the ten year plan as a whole as well as its implementation.

(I arrived about ten minutes late and I'm also concerned that I might inadvertantly omit one or two of these earliest speakers, but...)

Gene Patterson introduced reps from TYP, including Bill Lyons, Jon Lawler, David Arning, and a couple of other gentlemen whose names I missed. He acknowledged collectively a number of Council and Commission members standing at the rear of the room (mostly Council, I think). I noticed both Burchett and Hutchison in attendence, too. Each (most?) TYP rep then spoke briefly (without the aid of any visuals) to outline the Plan.

Gene next introduced Ron Peabody of the West Side Homeowners Association, who made a presentation (with visuals) focused primarily on cost concerns relating to TYP. I appreciated Ron's estimates, but I wished I had the same sort of details concerning what our costs to combat chronic homelessness are running now, before full implementation of the TYP, so that I might have had more context in which to consider his numbers.

Finally, Gene introduced Don Daugherty, who essentially re-pitched the contents of his recent editorial suggesting TYP should rehab Baptist Hospital.

I think it was at this point that Gene began calling to a mic positioned in the aisle the names of people who'd signed a log to speak. Each had just a couple of minutes, but both Gene and TYP reps were lenient.

All the (mostly elderly, mostly male, exclusively white) neighborhood folk were polite, but my opinion was that they were largely uninformed about both TYP and chronic homelessness generally. Their comments were rambling and their questions were naive, I thought.

The very first neighborhood resident to speak was a pastor, who opened with a profession of the "love in (his) heart" for the homeless, and who closed with a summation that "the plan won't work because we don't want them here."

Many of the speakers I couldn't hear well, in part because they appeared inexperienced using a mic and in part because their elderly voices were quite weak. It seemed they largely repeated the good reverend's sentiments in various ways.

One younger woman asked about how case management was to be delivered, but because her question wasn't very specific, Bill's answer wasn't either, so questions of the sort we've wondered about here weren't really answered.

Cheryl, another particularly articulate and seemingly authoritative woman, likely middle-aged, spoke to reveal her own previous homelessness. She appeared to affirm the TYP's "scattered site" approach and stressed the importance to the homeless of finding a sense of community again. I noticed Rebecca Ferrar later guided her to the lobby, presumably to interview her further.

Elaine Davis spoke, but I'm afraid I was engaged in a quite conversation with someone and failed to either recognize her immediately or capture her comments, although I think they related to costs. (Elaine?)

Former Shurf Tim spoke, saying he'd "been asked," and offered that "we already have all that infrastructure right there on Broadway." His mayoral opponent didn't speak.

His comments were among the last, which made them doubly tedious to me. I was glad to leave and felt a strong sense of gratitude that I wasn't Bill Lyons.

Oh...and another younger man expressed his incredulity that the TYP would consider "exporting this urban problem to the suburbs."

Bill politely corrected him that chronic homelessness is a "community problem."

Thanks so much for the report, Tamara. I really wish I could have attended.

Since I have pretty much lived in the burbs my entire life, I can understand the many residents wtih inexperience using a mic. In business I have had to speak in front of many people and I have never gotten comfortable with the activity except in a teaching environment.

People are trying to protect the their neighborhoods, retain the values of their homes, and ensure the neighborhoods will be safe. The PSHs are being thrust on them and they are just ordinary people wanting to speak up.

Many of the speakers I couldn't hear well, in part because they appeared inexperienced using a mic and in part because their elderly voices were quite weak. It seemed they largely repeated the good reverend's sentiments in various ways.

Well, mostly, but I didn't mean for that to sound so aloof.

Yes, thanks Tamara for clearing this up. In your defense of the homeless, it wouldn't seem right to be against the elderly.

Maybe someone should have asked them to turn up the speaker system. Who knows, maybe one of the old folks had something new and different to say.

Although I appreciate the TYP "Team" attending the meeting last night, what I saw during Mr. Peabody's presentation, was Bill Lyons, and Jon Lawler, standing on the sides, laughing as Mr. Peabody presented a very interesting set of projected costs to implement this plan.

Overall, the entire evening was respectful on all sides and we were most appreciative of the attitude that most of the speakers and the audience took even if they did not agree. We listened carefully to all the speakers and they listened carefully when we spoke.

I do recall that somewhere around the time of Mr. Peabody's presentation when Jon and I had a brief exchange (maybe 10 seconds)about the fact that Jon's son was on the front row. Jon wondered if he would wish he had a different seat if this thing went on for a couple of hours. I think that brought a smile to my face.

Also, for what it is worth I have no idea know what number 9 looks like but I did recognize the person who made the comment about homelessness being an "urban problem that we should not export to the suburbs" and I am quite sure that he is not number 9.

If we look east and south we can find readily availble problem free properties at 20-30 per acre.We are beating our heads against the wall and keeping people from being housed just to say we put one west? Why?

Because it's one of the principles of the TYP that this housing should be scattered around the city - and the county. And frankly, that's a good idea because certain parts of town are already pretty saturated with low-income housing. The "mission district" is the most extreme example, but south Knoxville also has a lot of low income housing, and that drove a lot of the opposition to Flenniken.

Everybody needs to do their share, and everybody needs to feel like everybody is doing their share.

From the KNS story:

Ron Peabody of the Kingston Woods Neighborhood Association said his research showed that the total costs of the Ten Year Plan's housing program would cost Knoxvillians $37 million a year in rent assistance, food stamps, health care and case management salaries.

I didn't catch that Ron's estimate of what the Plan would cost "Knoxville" included the cost of food stamps. Isn't that a state service, not a "Knoxville" one?

Does Ron's estimate of cost of healthcare then include TennCare, another state program to likely be delivered to residents?

And is it Ron or Rebecca Ferrar who focuses on costs to "Knoxville," when it would seem we locals need to ask about estimated costs to both Knoxville and Knox County?

Personally, I'd like to hear TYP cost estimates, from both Ron's group and the TYP, that reveal estimated costs to just Knoxville and Knox County, so that we may compare apples to apples. I'd like to hear a more detailed report on what Knoxville and Knox County spend on this problem now, in advance of the TYP's implementation, too.

Bill mentioned last night that the TYP effectively transfers costs currently being borne by local government to state and federal government, instead.

We pay taxes to all three government entities, of course, but in terms of the budgetary control such a transfer would afford us locally, this "upward transfer" would seem to be a good thing. It is, after all, our local budget over which we locals have the greatest control, so an "upward transfer" would afford us more choices locally as to how to spend our own tax revenues?

(Ron, apologies for misstating the name of your group earlier.)

The questions by people who came up to the microphone were inaudible and didn't seem to be answered satisfactorily based on the head shaking going on after the answers from TYP personnel.

I agree. By my count, only Dr. Pelot and that lanky professor I mentioned expressed support for TYP's approach. I think every other resident to take the mic was opposed. Polite, but opposed.

I had a hard time sitting there quietly when attorney John King gave a little speech.

And I completely forgot to mention it. Yes again, King seemed very much to indicate that his involvement was from "the goodness of his heart" (and it seemed that he was being recieved that way by his audience, too).

I think future sessions should start out with a TYP presentation, followed by Q&A from questions submitted from the audience and read by a moderator, and then have a panel of TYP advocates debate the issues with a panel of neighborhood people, at least one of which should be from the "mission district."

Ah, you take your suggestions for improving the program format a step beyond what I proposed. Yes, good idea to add that closing "debate" to future programs, too.

(I'm gone.)

I have never heard John King speak about anything for anybody unless he was paid for.

I don't personally know John King. However, he does live in the neighborhood I grew up in. When there was a problem with some zoning issues in that neighborhood a couple of years ago he did get involved on the side of the neighborhood and helped to get the issue resolved, without pay.

Maybe he knows some or a lot of the people in the area and was willing to help them as well.

There was a meeting with a format similar to what you suggest a couple of weeks ago in South Knoxville regarding Flenniken. Former County Executive Tommy Shumpert moderated. I think it went very well, everyone I spoke with seemed pleased with that format.

The format was totally up to the organizers from the neighborhood group. We were told when we got there that we had ten minutes to present and that that there would be a presentation in response. I understood the ten minutes that Mr. Peabody took but was confused as to where the twenty minutes or so that came next fit in, especially from Mr. King. However the couple of hours of questions and answers covered just about the waterfront of possible topics. We could hear all of the questions, not surprisingly, because the mic was located fairly close to us and the questioners were facing our direction. Well over half of what we heard was more in comments than in questions. That is absolutely to be expected.

The questions, and to a large degree the comments, dealt with (1) overall criticism of the TYP in concept (2) cost issues (3) siting issues (4) criticism of the scattered approach vs. a concentrated approach (5) criticism of the communications, and (6) questions about how the residences would operate and how people will be chosen.

More than a few folks also commented that they supported the TYP approach. Many of these had suggestions. (6) and of course by extension (3)(4) are key to a discussion in re:impact on a neighborhood. (1) and (2) are more about a broader approach in regard to how we as a community approach homelessness and the viability of the "housing first" model vs other approaches, or, sadly, in my opinion vs. just the residual alternative of doing nothing at all beyond emergency shelters.

I think a format that allows full presentation of what the TYP plan is and is not, and then allows for a long period of questions and dialog would be good. I don't personally think a moderator is necessary but am fine with one if that is what folks want.

Good observations above - about the use of visual aids. Especially when discussing an emotional topic, Charts & graphs when used appropriately can diffuse the emotional content and focus on the facts, challenge the facts, disagree with the facts, but stay away from personal attacks that only inflame the situation.

TYP could show the costs of services currently provided vs the investment in change and the results (either lower costs or better outcomes). They could have a schematic of the categories of homelessness and what services are available to each...

Very good suggestions. Right on target! Thanks.

We have millions of square feet of long vacant space in Knox County owned by Knox County - Rule High, South, Oakwood - and we're talking about building new facilities?

Don, I certainly agree that we have to bring in the next project at way less than was spent on Minvilla or Flenniken.

Still, cost wasn't the objection I heard voiced most at last night's meeting--proximity was.

And if people are that up in arms about a 48 unit apartment building for chronically homeless nearby, do you think they'd accept a facility as large as would result from rehabbing Rule, South, or Oakwood???

(All three of which, I notice, lie inside the city in north Knox, south Knox, and close to downtown. Where's that "sharing the load" Rachel urges?)

It seems the only mandate is that West Knox must be the next location. If only Baptist Hospital was in a different zip code.

This has left being about the homeless problem and fallen into a political black hole. It is now about zip codes and buildings. It should be about therapeutic services and how to pay for them.

Why does the Ten Year Plan not discuss therapeutic services? Is it because of the cost of the therapeutic services and the transportation required from the "scattered approach"? Apparently there is little to no Federal money for therapeutic services and transportation unlike there is for new building construction or historical restoration.

The priorities seem very skewed.

The money saved by using Baptist Hospital could be used for the most important thing, therapeutic services. But alas, wrong zip code.

"This may be completely off base, but in my limited experience, case management would be the service provided by VMC and the goal would be to help/assist/direct the client to access the services they need and qualify for - SSI, food stamps and Tenn-care (therapy), for example. Those services are already available, but due, say, to poor insight, they are not used."

All we keep hearing about is case management. Who provides the therapy, what does it cost, and who pays for it?

Isn't VMC at capacity? How can they provide more case management for 800 homeless patients? It is amazing how the details that matter are not discussed. All that is discussed is the cost of the site. We still have no site selection specifics other than multi-family zoning. In another thread on KnoxViews Bill Haslam is railing against unfunded mandates. Do you not have a concern that the Ten Year Plan is an unfunded mandate? If this costs $37 million dollars for 800 homeless patients who is going to pay for it and how? We are laying off teachers.

If you look at the Seattle plan you see the problem. They created all kinds of housing, then ran out of money for services. Yet current and former City Council members are bragging how great the Seattle plan is. I don't think they have an idea of the problems in Seattle.

In Knox County we have all these new branch libraries and Senior Centers, but we can't afford to staff them so the hours are so cut back working people can't use them.

The article had this to say about "housing first," too:

Influential Bush administration officials have come to support this project, including the on-site drinking. John Meyers, director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's regional office in Seattle, said he blanched when he learned that his agency had pledged $2 million for it. He now calls 1811 Eastlake "a glorious experiment."

"It's a lot cheaper having them spend the night at 1811 than at the ER or at the drunk tank," Meyers said.

Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, said there should be a similar building in every city in the country.

And this:

The building's atmosphere during a recent daytime visit was more convalescent home than rowdy dorm. A few men in the television room stared silently at a World Cup match, while others wearing backpacks trudged through the front door and into the communal kitchen for apple fritters and coffee.

A third of the residents, including Littlebear, are American Indian; an estimated 20 percent are military veterans. The average age is 45. Most receive state or federal disability payments, and all residents pay 30 percent of their income as rent under HUD's guidelines.

And this:

Their quality of life, drinking and use of public services are being studied by researchers at the University of Washington. King said the alcohol intake of the residents was shockingly high at first, but many residents say they now drink less, at least by their standards.

I'm not sure the article told us anything we didn't already know, especially that case management (and a modicom of personal responsibility, too) will be pivotal to assuring the program's success.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but 1811 Eastlake is an urban solution. It does not move people to a suburban setting.

This is the kind of project that should be built in the city center, in proximity to the service providers and other community facilities. Downtown is "everybody's neighborhood" because it has a concentration of diverse public and private services accessible to pedestrians.