So the roughly 600 that get hosed and no longer have beds to sleep in is cool?
Good to know.
Hate when [MENTION=1988]Stoked[/MENTION] and others push math. Damn them!!
New SLC Homeless Shelters
- Thread starter Ron Mexico
- Start date
So the roughly 600 that get hosed and no longer have beds to sleep in is cool?
Good to know.
Hate when [MENTION=1988]Stoked[/MENTION] and others push math. Damn them!!
Read the article genius. You really believe a non-profit dedicated to helping the homeless is trying to create homelessness? Pffffft everyone in Utah knows how hard the road Home an all are radio stations work an dedicate there lives to this cause.
From your article...and I quote..."The four future homeless resource centers are expected to house 150 people each, for a total of 600 beds. Currently, the downtown shelter has a capacity of about 1,100"
Now here is where it gets tricky, so stay with me. I asked my 9 year old to double check my figures to make sure I didn't mess up.
1,100 - 600 = 500.
So 500 homeless people now lose out.
Damn you math! Damn you!!!
Here we are folks. Another prime example of someone who knows nothing about the situation repeating outlandish claims. Nice job cherry picking an pretending the rest of the article did not exist. The increased external housing does not exist right [MENTION=1988]Stoked[/MENTION]? Did you see that John Stewart bit on Utah curing homelessness by giving homes to homeless an saving taxpayers money to? That do not exist to stoked either cause his daughter did the math an he pretends it was not thought throo an they want to increase homelessness
That was decent article, thanks for posting more information about what is going on. What I read is that the city is putting a positive spin on it and the city council person over downtown area is excited the problem is leaving his area or at least being greatly reduced. Our former Mayor Anderson is concerned about this decision but hopeful. The people who run the Road Home right now sound like they were taken back by what is going on. The article also talked about 2 of the main three groups pushing to move the facilities which are Rio Grande development group that is giving that facility over to the city when the other 4 open up. Sounds like the city is making some good money there. The other group pushing for it is the new ownership of Gateway that has promised the city millions if they move the facility. The other group talked about in the article is Pioneer Park group that runs the park and all the concerts that happen there.
There are some positives to this move/situation that I have supported all along and still do. First is opening a women's only shelter and a shelter for families. This is needed and a real positive. I am all for this and think it is and will be a good decision. SLC is very behind in that regard but at least we are doing it now. The other is getting more on site services at the shelters. That is a positive but they are also moving them away from many of these services. None of those things explain closing the current facility. Maybe a renovation should be done. The group according to the article you posted that made the decision to close it is private non profit group headed by Zions Bancorp. Why not add two more facilities and even renovate the current facility instead of getting rid of many beds. Also they are moving people away from the many groups that have set up to help homeless in the area such as the methadone clinic that a large percentage of people who dont want to be on heroine have to visit daily for years.
I was very supportive of this. How has it turned out? Do you still follow what is happening. My understanding is it has had its up and downs and many other states have monitored it due to its initial success but have since decided it was not a good decision for their state/cities due to the increase in homeless population and its inability to reduce drug use. Getting people off of Heroine is the main key to reducing homeless population as well as helping people with their mental illness through therapy and medication that homeless cant afford. We cant reduce heroine addicts until we stop getting people hooked on pain pills and we stop treating addicts like criminals. The new plan is not helping with this.
Ill still be disapointed by the shelter opening but if it is the Women's only or family facility I will not have much of an issue with it. If it is the mens only I will be very upset that the city moved them by my house and into a residential area at a cost out of my pocket to make money for them. That is not fair or reasonable action for the city to take. Dangerous homeless people should not be put into resdential areas. The city said the looked to the citizens to help create criteria for where the shelters should go. I guarantee that at the top of that list was not in residential areas, near schools, or near where kids play. They failed in 3 out of the 4 areas with that criteria. They also said the put a board together that represented many different people in the community but all of them had business and or city interest in mind based on the backgrounds of the majority.
The city really messed up this process. They have made it clear that helping the homeless is not their top priority. Business and money interests come first. They are still trying to help homeless but it is lower on their list.
I also live 4 blocks from one of the site, and I'm trying to sell my home this spring. While I'm bummed, this is the right approach to the issue and as a city and community we need to get behind these efforts. My home value does not outweigh the value of human life, and SLC is dealing with its own smaller-scale human rights crisis.
I hope to see other communities in the State step up and help us with this problem. So far, our neighboring communities are sitting on their hands. Shame on them.
Boris owning bitches up in here. The County will be implementing programming that will help reduce homelessness and transition those in need into affordable housing, which the City has allocated over $21M to support.
The city keeps talking about there is no good place to put the shelters. Yet they chose 1 neighborhood to house 3 of the 4... Which happens to be one of the lower income neighborhoods in SLC. Why not distribute them evenly?
The also talk about how they are going to send out extra police and drugs wont be tolerated in those areas. I guess drugs are tolerated other areas of the city? This is the problem they act like addicts are criminals and they need to have police arrest them and crack down on drug use. Why not help them and greatly reduce the homeless population? Most people hooked on heroine got hooked on pain pills and when they could not afford pain pills found a cheaper option in heroine.
The also talk about how they are going to send out extra police and drugs wont be tolerated in those areas. I guess drugs are tolerated other areas of the city? This is the problem they act like addicts are criminals and they need to have police arrest them and crack down on drug use. Why not help them and greatly reduce the homeless population? Most people hooked on heroine got hooked on pain pills and when they could not afford pain pills found a cheaper option in heroine.
If helping the homeless was their number 1 priority then I would be okay with it. But it is very clear that is #2 at best on their priorities. Otherwise they would not be making as much profit from this as they are. They also would not have so many businesses who are making gains out of this involved in the process. They also would have been more transparent.
The only positive with this is getting womens only and families facilities. The rest is tackling this issue the wrong way and is not going to help long term.
Good luck selling in the spring. The market is going to be rough in your area. I heard at the council meeting 100s of people saying they are selling. I am guessing there are going to be a lot of houses for sell and that is going to make it hard to move a house and it is going to lose a lot of money. Maybe the city can take some of the huge amounts of money they are making off this decision and help pay the difference to you.
You seem like a very caring person. The outrage of course is a land battle an nothing more it always is. The politically connected want something from this an people like you do not want to get hurt financially to the benefit of those in power. This happens all the time.
Here is a new article that shows no beds will be reduced an that is simply a talking point from those trying to stop change.
Rio Grand is not slated for closure it is slated for reduction.
The article also goes on to show the power source behind the scenes. Now, I want to excuse zions bank from this cause they are community based bank that has been bankrolling The Riad Home for a long time. There CEO is the president of the board so I think they are committed to doing the right thing. Still you know backroom politics has a angle here lt governor is on the board.
That lease rent is crazy low. There is a good possibility that Zions bank planned this all along for tax deductions an then to sell at a high gentrified appreciation rate. Zions Bank is dirty an I would not put it passed them to buy a dump building an use it as a advertisement an then gentrify for huge gains.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/4707922-155/the-road-home-shelter-on-rio
Regardless of the "external housing" decreasing the bed count by 500 despite the clear demand for them is stupid.
And you suck at math.
Ill read through that. I appreciate any info about this. I am under the impression The Road Home is closing not just a reduction.
I just got back from a neighborhood council meeting that the Mayor actually came to. A lot of really good basic questions came up and the Mayor answered none of them and just talked about other stuff. It was kind of sad to see the process. When upset citizens started getting too noisy for her she scolded everyone and told them to appreciate that she came to answer questions. I responded that she wasn't answering our questions she told us she could just leave instead. How embarrassing for a Mayor of a big city to make a decision behind closed doors and then not answer questions and respond to anger with threatening to leave a council meeting.
I got interviewed by a lot local news people during the meeting so I guess I appreciate that some of the information I want heard will get heard.
More and more questions keep getting raised about this and the method they are using. It is clear to me that helping the homeless was not the motive for this and they are not going to listen to the people on it or answer questions. There are public input meetings happening that I plan to attend. They are apparently needed to continue the process to open the shelters. 2 of the locations including 1 near me do not have the proper zoning to open shelters and will need to get zoning laws changed. I plan to fight that.
I wish they had kept the road home open with some improvements and then opened a women's only shelter and a family shelter separate like their initial plan was. This is the obvious and best choice for the community and the homeless people but businesses in the area had a bigger say than its citizens.
Also they had a plant at the meeting and it was really obvious and sad.
The Mayor also informed us that they have not looked into the impact the homeless shelters would have on the surrounding houses value. She said they are going to look into that now after they already made decisions that are set in stone.
She also provided a lot of information about current resources and centers open in SLC and lied about their impact and how they are doing. My friend sitting next to me works at one and told us what she said was simply not true.
I would be shocked if she is re-elected as Mayor. She is clearly in over her head and under qualified for her position and burned a lot of bridges in only 1 year.
I got interviewed by a lot local news people during the meeting so I guess I appreciate that some of the information I want heard will get heard.
More and more questions keep getting raised about this and the method they are using. It is clear to me that helping the homeless was not the motive for this and they are not going to listen to the people on it or answer questions. There are public input meetings happening that I plan to attend. They are apparently needed to continue the process to open the shelters. 2 of the locations including 1 near me do not have the proper zoning to open shelters and will need to get zoning laws changed. I plan to fight that.
I wish they had kept the road home open with some improvements and then opened a women's only shelter and a family shelter separate like their initial plan was. This is the obvious and best choice for the community and the homeless people but businesses in the area had a bigger say than its citizens.
Also they had a plant at the meeting and it was really obvious and sad.
The Mayor also informed us that they have not looked into the impact the homeless shelters would have on the surrounding houses value. She said they are going to look into that now after they already made decisions that are set in stone.
She also provided a lot of information about current resources and centers open in SLC and lied about their impact and how they are doing. My friend sitting next to me works at one and told us what she said was simply not true.
I would be shocked if she is re-elected as Mayor. She is clearly in over her head and under qualified for her position and burned a lot of bridges in only 1 year.
We were also informed that despite telling us the new homeless shelters and the method they are using wont have the same problems. She went on to say later they this model had never been done and they dont know the impact the will have. So they are using neighborhoods as guinea pigs and hope for the best. She also told us that there would not be a drug problem because there would not be lines outside and it would be easier to identify criminals when there are only 150 instead of 1000. But that if crime does become a problem and get worse they will look into how to solve it when it happens. Clearly this has not been well thought out.
They are going to chose a 3rd site by 03/30 somewhere within the county. Also the two that have sites will each see a 50 bed increase.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865674178/SLC-Leaders-change-plans-for-homeless-shelters.html
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's good to see the county taking more responsibility but I'm a little concerned about the overall lack of beds. I hope this doesn't lead to more homeless camping but I fear it will. The problems with the road home are that it's too big, it's not a 24-hour shelter(they kick everybody out during the day), and they serve the homeless rather than a subset of the homeless. The new plan solves these problems but the overall scale is unrealistic. They're putting in 600 new beds(if the new county shelter gets built) but they're going to remove 1100? Am I going to be able to take my kids to the park anymore?
I have yet to hear a plan to address those 500 people. Are they just going to wait until homeless camping gets out of hand and then expand the new shelters? They just bumped them from 150 to 200 and they haven't even built them yet. I'm glad Dancing Cranes is staying where it's at but their plan just went from insufficient to crazy insufficient.
I have yet to hear a plan to address those 500 people. Are they just going to wait until homeless camping gets out of hand and then expand the new shelters? They just bumped them from 150 to 200 and they haven't even built them yet. I'm glad Dancing Cranes is staying where it's at but their plan just went from insufficient to crazy insufficient.
Mayor Biskupski is digging herself deeper into a hole. This is getting worse and worse. She has no gone back on her word. Money is clearly the most important factor in this. We have moved the shelter out of the neighborhood that complained the most. We moved the homeless shelter out of idustrial/business area because of wealthy business owners and developers in the area. There will be the same problems at the new shelters but now instead of one area that is industrial/business and known the problem is in neighborhoods.
There are so many problems with this plan and its getting worse. I think it is time they scrap the plan and start over.
There are so many problems with this plan and its getting worse. I think it is time they scrap the plan and start over.
Oh good night this nagging with no information continues?
Research PAY FOR SUCCESS folks. It is an innovative approach that Utah has used in several areas including pre-kindergarten education, with fantastic results.
You all still hung up on thinking thinking a inspired program specifically designed an funded by James L. Sorensen is gonna cut 500 beds? Give me a break.
Why do you not do the grown up think an ask those involved WHY?
Here, read this instead.
https://www.theroadhome.org/blog/?p=835
https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff/pay-for-success/
Guess what folks. A program like this was used on 595 kids an 110 of them were at risk for not being smart enough to enter kindergarten. Only one of them failed entry exams. That is saying something with Utah's ADHD an autism problem. Almost every single one got better cause of the pay for success program worked. You know who funded it for United Way of Utah?