Overblown opposition: IFC compromises contradict opponents’ continued claims

By Editorial Board
Updated: 01/11/11 8:43am
  Email this article  |      Share on Delicious  Share on Digg
Tools

Possibly Related

The new Community House Men’s Shelter to be located on Homestead Road remains a hotly debated topic among the shelter’s soon-to-be-neighborhood. Citizens have complained about its proximity to a preschool and the possible decrease in property value.

However, compromises by the Inter-Faith Council, which will operate the new shelter, indicate a valiant effort to value the viewpoint of the community in designing its guidelines for the shelter.

At least three community discussion meetings were held last year in order for community members to voice their concerns. In total, about 300 people attended the meetings, said Chris Moran, executive director of the IFC.

As a result of the views expressed by the public, the IFC has made changes to the way the newest shelter will operate. The shelter staff will make sure the residents are both clean and sober.

There will also be a “no visitor” policy to keep people who do not qualify for the program away from the shelter and the surrounding community. In order to be eligible for the program, a prospective resident will need to be referred by an outside organization.

Moran said that the shelter is still planning the logistics of monitoring the sobriety of residents. It should solidify those soon.

However, with the requirement of a referral to enter the shelter, most residents will already be screened for addictions and other problems. The IFC seems to recognize the importance of a clean shelter to keeping the community happy.

Another point of contention was the policy of allowing more people to use the shelter when inclement weather occurs. The people who use the shelter during this time would not be have to be referred to use the shelter.

While a valid concern, this will only occur in extreme weather situations, when it is too cold or dangerous to be outside, and will only be used when absolutely necessary.

The IFC and the new shelter were right to include the opinions of the public in these policies. Claims by those still opposed to the shelter’s move that the IFC has not been accommodating are overblown.

Published January 10, 2011 in Opinion

3 comments

Mark Peters
January 18, 2011 at 5:50 PM
Flag this comment

Clearly the DTH has no interest in getting the facts correct. I submitted a column which outlined factual problems with the last editorial and the DTH refused to print it and refused to research the facts presented.

These are the facts that the DTH has wrong:

Read more …

1) The meetings held by IFC were not discussions. IFC stated that they were “private” meetings over which they had complete control. IFC refused to answer questions at those meetings.

2) The shelter will up to 17 allow drunk and high men to stay. The DTH statement “ The shelter staff will make sure the residents are both clean and sober” does not apply to the 17 beds. The Chapel Hill News made the same mistake and printed a retraction. Thus “The IFC seems to recognize the importance of a clean shelter to keeping the community happy” is also a false statement.

3) The largest error in this editor is the quote “this will only occur in extreme weather situations, when it is too cold or dangerous to be outside, and will only be used when absolutely necessary.” You clearly have not done your homework. IFC had 197 white flag nights in 2009 out of the 206 nights which were eligible. IFC published these figures on their blog a while back. Your mistaken impression is from the misleading figures that IFC quoted earlier this month which only covered JULY to December 23rd. Guess what? You don’t get many white flag nights in your count if you only include 3 days of winter.

Please get the facts straight before jumping to conclusions.


abettersite.org
February 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM
Flag this comment

$1,800,000 In Public Money for IFC Shelter, But Nowhere For Sex Offenders To Find Shelter?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykuArEgedE0

Read more …

$1,800,000 In Public Money for IFC Shelter, But Nowhere For Sex Offenders To Find Shelter?


Lisa Haidt
March 1, 2011 at 9:40 AM
Flag this comment

The DTH could really do some investigative work on this politcal issue. The facts behind how the land was obtained and how the officials are forcing this through should be compelling for our forward-thinking students. How about a comparison on how other municipalities choose a location for like-facilities? It’s not just about property values. Someone ought to do some real investigative work and get whole story. I expect more than an glossy summary in real reporting.

 
Join the discussion
You Should Know

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.

Formatting Options:
  • Links: "my link":http://my.url.com
  • Bold: *something!*
  • Italic: _OMG!_
Powered by Detroit Softworks