After much information has been learned about the astonishing cost of the Minvilla project, unanswered questions still remain; the main ones are:
1. Given that the estimated cost of VMC's Minvilla project is now "north of $6,000,000" (according to 6/20 quote from the Ten Year Plan's Housing Coordinator) and has been rising at ~$100k per month, why are not the many and much less expensive alternatives being pursued?
2. How does it make sense to house fragile and recently homeless individuals immediatly adjacent to those who could easily re-enable the activities which may have caused their homelessness in the first place.
According to the same quote from the Ten Year Plan's Housing Coordinator ((link...)), the cost "is...kind of a moving target" so we don't actually know what the final cost will be; however, we do know that many more and less expensive options are available now. ((link...))
Much has been made of my ~$200/sq ft calculation of this $6+mm and ~30,000 sq foot project but rather than argue the math...real questions need answering. Why not help more people with more efficient use of funds? Why not help them sooner by using readily available properties? Why not locate them in an area where they are less likely to be tempted or preyed upon?
- Mayor Burchett goes off on Gov. Haslam re. mental health treatment funding (16 replies)
- 100th running of the Indianapolis 500 today (2 replies)
- For You and Me (1 reply)
- Trump uniting the GOP? (8 replies)
- Help a deserving Fulton High student go to Australia (2 replies)
- Payday lenders racking up in Tennessee (3 replies)
- A Record for False Statements in KNS reply (3 replies)
- Air bag recall expanded to millions more cars (6 replies)
- Sanders wins Oregon, splits Kentucky with Clinton (3 replies)
- UAW endorses Hillary Clinton (1 reply)
- Switzerland's Gotthard Train Tunnel Will Be World's Longest, Deepest (4 replies)
- Vacation snapshots (4 replies)