Shelter article in the Burbank Leader
Mar/15/2009 17:59
The Burbank Leader published an article about the shelter. Little mention is made of the sex-offenders found there or the importing of L.A.‘s chronic homeless. Link
Please read the article and respond with any comments you have at the end. I submitted the following:
Please read the article and respond with any comments you have at the end. I submitted the following:
I am happy to see the Winter Shelter Program over and hope it doesn't return next year in our area.
My neighborhood had been required to bare the burden so helping the people made homeless by the recent "economic downturn".
What was the excuse in previous years these people used? Most of the 'guests' at the shelter are chronically homeless. Ms. Gatlin of the Union Rescue Mission admitted such in front of the city council. A great majority have substance abuse problems severe enough that they would rather lose their job, home, and self-respect to keep their addiction.
Some people are homeless due to the economy or other unforeseen circumstances. There are those that need temporary help. These numbers are small compared to the larger number of chronically homeless serviced by the WSP.
In the neighborhood close to the armory which housed the shelter, long time residents have noted troubling incidents they’ve hardly ever encountered in all their years in Burbank. Neighbors have had things stolen and found drugs on their property. We’ve seen homeless swaying drunk down the middle of the street and sleeping in doorways and restrooms at the park. Homeless have loitered in front of the local library and ogled young girls.
Eight sex-offenders stayed at the shelter despite promises to the city council and citizens that guests were screened. The shelter didn’t find any of them until after-the-fact and didn’t really start checking until one was discovered by the Burbank PD.
The response given is that these type of things have happened before the shelter was here, it just part of life. Does that make it OK? Do we need to encourage more of the same and increase it by inviting the homeless and their vices into Burbank?
We’ve seen the loss of a number of major stores and NBC will be leaving soon. Burbank is spending it’s time catering to a homeless shelter that provides no benefit to Burbank other to assuage some guilt and/or warm the hearts of some on the city council. Shouldn’t the city be more concerned with bringing business and jobs to Burbank instead of making it more like Skid Row?
Can you name one place that is better off five years after opening a homeless shelter? Does a shelter increase the standard of living in the area? Will real-estate agent boast of a shelter as a selling point of a property? Or is it more true that crime will increase and the standard of living will decline? The city council believes that is a real possibility otherwise why did they insist on a bus-in bus-out program?
I could favor a program that gave temporary help to people and families. We’re interring a time where local, state and national govts. will have to choose where and hows funds are spent where the money will do the most good. I would rather see funds spent towards helping those that will use the service just long enough to get on their feet.
To respond to ‘super volunteer’ Zip Pearson: “They were given a taste of the good life,” Pearson, 52, said. “They tasted the honey. You think they want to go back to downtown Los Angeles, to Skid Row?”
Why do ‘they’ have to return to skid row? Believe it or not ‘they’ could find work and get off the streets. It won’t be a great job, but it will pay the bills. Go look at the folks outside of Home Depot and such places. They’re willing to do what it takes to feed themselves and their families.
Responding to Mr Pearson’s metaphor: “Burbank has been in the Walt Disney days for too long. It’s time they come into the Obama century. A century where the homeless can get help, get a job.”
It was the ‘Walt Disney’ days that made Burbank what it is today - a place you prefer to be. Downtown L.A. has been a place for homeless services before the ‘Obama century’ even existed and look where it is today - You lament that people have to return there.
My neighborhood had been required to bare the burden so helping the people made homeless by the recent "economic downturn".
What was the excuse in previous years these people used? Most of the 'guests' at the shelter are chronically homeless. Ms. Gatlin of the Union Rescue Mission admitted such in front of the city council. A great majority have substance abuse problems severe enough that they would rather lose their job, home, and self-respect to keep their addiction.
Some people are homeless due to the economy or other unforeseen circumstances. There are those that need temporary help. These numbers are small compared to the larger number of chronically homeless serviced by the WSP.
In the neighborhood close to the armory which housed the shelter, long time residents have noted troubling incidents they’ve hardly ever encountered in all their years in Burbank. Neighbors have had things stolen and found drugs on their property. We’ve seen homeless swaying drunk down the middle of the street and sleeping in doorways and restrooms at the park. Homeless have loitered in front of the local library and ogled young girls.
Eight sex-offenders stayed at the shelter despite promises to the city council and citizens that guests were screened. The shelter didn’t find any of them until after-the-fact and didn’t really start checking until one was discovered by the Burbank PD.
The response given is that these type of things have happened before the shelter was here, it just part of life. Does that make it OK? Do we need to encourage more of the same and increase it by inviting the homeless and their vices into Burbank?
We’ve seen the loss of a number of major stores and NBC will be leaving soon. Burbank is spending it’s time catering to a homeless shelter that provides no benefit to Burbank other to assuage some guilt and/or warm the hearts of some on the city council. Shouldn’t the city be more concerned with bringing business and jobs to Burbank instead of making it more like Skid Row?
Can you name one place that is better off five years after opening a homeless shelter? Does a shelter increase the standard of living in the area? Will real-estate agent boast of a shelter as a selling point of a property? Or is it more true that crime will increase and the standard of living will decline? The city council believes that is a real possibility otherwise why did they insist on a bus-in bus-out program?
I could favor a program that gave temporary help to people and families. We’re interring a time where local, state and national govts. will have to choose where and hows funds are spent where the money will do the most good. I would rather see funds spent towards helping those that will use the service just long enough to get on their feet.
To respond to ‘super volunteer’ Zip Pearson: “They were given a taste of the good life,” Pearson, 52, said. “They tasted the honey. You think they want to go back to downtown Los Angeles, to Skid Row?”
Why do ‘they’ have to return to skid row? Believe it or not ‘they’ could find work and get off the streets. It won’t be a great job, but it will pay the bills. Go look at the folks outside of Home Depot and such places. They’re willing to do what it takes to feed themselves and their families.
Responding to Mr Pearson’s metaphor: “Burbank has been in the Walt Disney days for too long. It’s time they come into the Obama century. A century where the homeless can get help, get a job.”
It was the ‘Walt Disney’ days that made Burbank what it is today - a place you prefer to be. Downtown L.A. has been a place for homeless services before the ‘Obama century’ even existed and look where it is today - You lament that people have to return there.