URL: http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/01/chapel_hill_town_council_nixes_ifc_shelter_rules
Current Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 02:43:20 -0400
Due to a reporting error, this story incorrectly stated the Town Council’s reaction to the shelter guidelines. The council received the guidelines and referred them to the town manager and attorney. This article has been updated to reflect these changes. The Daily Tar Heel apologizes for the error.
The Chapel Hill Town Council declined the shelter guidelines that resulted from a year’s worth of revisions at Wednesday’s meeting.
Citing vague definitions and insufficient numerical data, the guidelines were referred to the town manager and attorney.
Residents and council members expressed concern that there was no regulation for proximity to schools and parks. If built within 1,000 feet of a school or a park, law stipulates registered sex offenders cannot use these services.
Chapel Hill resident Tim CoyneSmith said he didn’t think a facility with public funding should be built in a location where it cannot serve all of the public.
CoyneSmith is a public opponent of a possible relocation of the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service’s Community House men’s shelter to the Homestead Road area.
“Some of these people may be very much in need, and yet we’re spending all this money, and they’re being left out,” he said.
Council members repeatedly asked for specific data, including the size of the county’s homeless population, which the planning board could not produce.
“To get an actual number is a very difficult task because someone who is homeless today is not necessarily homeless tomorrow,” council member Penny Rich said.
In the planning board’s presentation, proximity was the defining characteristic in what makes a shelter site desirable or undesirable.
A desirable location is one within one-quarter mile of public services like transportation, food banks and employment centers, board chairman Mike Collins said.
Undesirable sites are close to residential areas, adult entertainment facilities and bars or liquor stores, the guidelines stated.
“The location should have more desirables than undesirables,” Collins said.
Collins, who presented the new guidelines, recommended the council employ an impartial outside consultant to create the guidelines.
The council first suggested the planning board create shelter guidelines as a reaction to a special-use permit application from the IFC to relocate its Community House men’s shelter farther from the downtown area.
The shelter is currently located in a town-owned building on Rosemary Street.
Chris Moran, the IFC’s executive director, said he was not surprised the guidelines didn’t pass.
“It’s a hard decision, and they need time to mull it over and decide what’s best,” he said.
The status of the IFC’s application was not discussed at the meeting and is set for council review on March 21.
Contact the City Editor at city@dailytarheel.com.
Do you think fracking can be done safely?
The title “Chapel Hill Town Council nixes IFC shelter rules” is incorrect. The council was considering general homeless shelter and possibly at-risk facility guidelines. These may or may not apply to IFC at some point, but they are not “IFC shelter rules”.
This statement is incorrect: “The Chapel Hill Town Council declined the shelter guidelines…” The staff recommendation was to “receive” the report. That is what the town council did. They did not decline anything. This item will appear on a future agenda.w3.ibm
This statement is incorrect: “the guidelines were sent back to the town planning board.” The report and the questions the council member asked were sent back to STAFF. The council did NOT direct the planning board to do anything.
This statement is incorrect: “The council first suggested the planning board create shelter guidelines as a reaction to a special-use permit application from the IFC to relocate its Community House men’s shelter farther from the downtown area.” The request was a reaction to the change in the land use management ordinance. Prior to the change, shelters could only house 25 people. The change allowed larger shelters but provided no other restrictions to compensate for the larger shelters.
Just to be perfectly clear, the statement “If built within 1,000 feet of a school or a park, law stipulates registered sex offenders cannot use these services” omits the key point that sex offenders who are homeless in Orange County will have no where to go if the only shelter in the county is located within 1,000 feet of a school. I suggest that you re-listen to Chris Moran’s comments, because there is a lot of “reading between the lines” to determine what is and isn’t being said. Chris’ statement on Jan 4th and at this meeting are that IFC does not want to serve sex offenders. He tries to make a point that the sex offenders are clearly finding places to stay because “we all know where they are”, which is a reference to the fact that people can look up sex offenders and see that about 10 offenders are living in Chapel Hill. However, his statement does not address the fact that if $1.8M in public assistance is going to build a transitional shelter that will also serve as the county’s only men’s emergency shelter, then it should definitely be located where it can serve sex offenders and non-sex-offenders alike. If private money, then do what you want, but $1.8M in public assistance should serve all folks, including those who have done their time. If not, then where do they go? Sleep in front of Parker or Whitehead?
The Daily Tar Heel reserves the right to remove any comment deemed racially derogatory, inflammatory, or spammatory. Repeat offenders may have their IP address banned from posting future comments. Please be nice.
If this is the first time you've commented, your comment won't appear until you've verified your email address.
Flag this comment