On the surface, it is perfectly reasonable to agree with the IFC’s decision to take the University up on its offer to lease the land at a rate of $1 per year. However, there continue to be many unanswered questions that when addressed will shed an entirely different light onto the issue. I’ve listed some, but not all of those questions below.
2. What is UNC getting out of this extremely philanthropic act?
3. What are the criteria Chris Moran states the IFC used to select this area?
4. What criteria were used to select the previous sites that were ultimately rejected and where is the evidence the criteria were used before the previous sites were rejected?
5. What is to happen to the men who are turned away from using one of the planned 20 emergency beds?
6. How will the IFC and Town keep the men turned away from taking up residence in the woods and
To believe the shelter will NOT attract other homeless men looking for a place to stay or a meal is naive. To believe these individuals will NOT seek refuge in Homestead Park
Folks, we are being led to believe by many of our civic and lay leaders that these are new issues. I disagree. These are the same issues being raised over and over again each time the IFC selects a new site for the men's shelter. To date, none of the main themes of security, objective process and transparency into the site evaluation process have been addressed and resolved.
The good of a very few constituents should not, in good conscience, come before the good of the many. This is one of the basic premises that make living in Chapel Hill something to be proud of. I implore the Mayor and Town Council to not brake from this premise and make a decision that appears to be so clearly based on economics rather than on the needs of the entire town.
Issues:
Comments
Some links to other similar discussions
http://www.orangepolitics.com/2009/10/helping-homeless-menhttp://www.orangepolitics.com/2008/05/the-new-location-of-the-shelter-is