Comments about ‘Home for chronically homeless drawing fire’

If the complex doesn't require drug/alcohol counseling or mental health treatment for the residents, it will become "just another homeless shelter".

When oh when will people accept the fact that the overwhelming majority of the homeless are NOT middle-class professionals just "down on their luck" but persons with severe substance abuse and mental health problems?

What harm could "chronically homeless people over the age of 55" do to any children?

If they really don't want to live near that, or have their children walk past it, then they should move.

Then they could take all those abandoned homes and give those to the homeless too.

All these people care about is them and their familys. Talk about SELFISH!

And why in the world would you start a website like that? These people have ISSUES.

Classic "NIMBY" syndrome Jones. When will you realize that homeless people are people too?? Housing is a basic human need, and your neighborhood is no better than any other. Congrats to the Housing Authority for moving forward with this respectable project that will positively affect so many lives. If Mr. Jones doesn't want his child walking past these apartments in the morning, he should consider driving him to school. Although, I'll believe he'll find that this supportive housing isn't nearly as detrimental as he is painting it out to be.

Miss Cynthia Forsythe,are you for real? The over 50 can,will,and do abuse children, they are just as capable as anyone else, and if they are druggies,they WILL create all kinds of problems.thefts,breakins,etc. wake up to the real world.

This is not a NIMBY issue. The neighborhood is already bearing a disproportion burden of the costs associated with low income housing. Ours is not an emotional response. It is not rooted in fear, ignorance nor intolerance. After reviewing the national and local impact studies, any intellectually honest person will come to the same conclusion as we have: We need to help the homeless. This is the Right Project in the Wrong Location. I encourage anyone to honestly review the studies posted on our website to understand the issues.

All the other homeless facilities that we've researched in Utah are located in commercial, manufacturing, or industrial zones to help mitigate the costs inherent in these types of projects.

The Kelly Benson Apartments can be an asset to the neighborhood in which it is located--especially if the neighborhood is already struggling with the problems that come with chronic homelessness...like Pioneer Park

I would suspect--and certainly hope--that by providing housing for the homeless we are drastically reducing required police intervention.

The point I'm trying to make is that these facilities can be a great benefit to neighborhoods in which these crimes and problems are already occurring. However, injecting these problems into a residential neighborhood in which the crimes associated with homelessness is near non-existent, can only be seen as a burden--not an asset. Essentially we're cost-shifting the problems associated with chronic homelessness away from the very places that are best suited to handle them (commercial, manufacturing, or industrial areas) and onto the backs of the most vulnerable in society--our school children. This is the Right Project. Unfortunately, all the research we've discovered so far demonstrates that a residential neighborhood is clearly the Wrong Location.

"What harm could "chronically homeless people over the age of 55" do to any children?"

Most homeless are not harmless and down on their luck people. They suffer from severe mental problems, heavy drug abuse, and many of them are registered sex-offenders who are not current on their registration due to their vagrancy. If you think otherwise, go spend a night in pioneer park. If you think a person over the age of 55 couldn't harm a child, stop being naive.

My responce to the above comments is ask Elizabeth Smart what harm cronically homeless people over the age 55 could do. Barzee was 62 at the time of her abduction and Mitchell was 49 which is not to far from the 55 age limit. I understand thier concern. When asked to put our desire to help the homeless at a higher priority that protecting thier children the answer is clear. Would you want it in your neighborhood and welcome it knowing that the potential harm that could come to your children is increased. It seems that there are areas that are better suited for a facility like this. Can't we help homeless and protect our kids?? If I had to choose I would definitly choose kids, the future. The harm caused to one child is not worth the risk.

I have looked into this project. It is NOT in my backyard but I can completely see the concerns of the residents. The skybridge dumps all of the school children on the front steps of this facility. The residents have worked hard to find the hard stats of what can be expected. If the neighbors were just a bunch of NIMBY's, one of the propossed re-locations would not be right across the street - not on the walking route for children. The concern is the mixture of two incompatible groups. I am aware of other "safe routes for children" in more affluent parts of the valley that have bypassed bus stops because adults standing around might not be compatible with the children walking to school!

Mr. Jones and his neighbors have valid concerns that have yet to be addressed. Construction should stop until there is resolution to some very concerning questions.

Most homeless are not harmless and down on their luck people. They suffer from severe mental problems, heavy drug abuse, and many of them are registered sex-offenders who are not current on their registration due to their vagrancy. If you think otherwise, go spend a night in pioneer park. If you think a person over the age of 55 couldn't harm a child, stop being naive.

I applaud Mr. Jones for fighting so hard to protect his family and community. The idea that if you don't like it you should just move is childish and immature. These families have put their heart and soul into these neighborhoods and have every right to protest the potential "crapification" that may take place if this housing project moves forward. If protecting your family and neighborhood is selfish as you suggest Miss Cynthia Forsyth, then I guess I'm a selfish man myself.

Furthermore, no one is suggesting that homeless people are not people too, but like Jake and Doesn't matter have pointed out, the majority of homeless people have mental problems and can pose a threat the the community around them. It is not heartless to want a good community around your home.

It may be a NIMBY issue but Miss Synthia is evidently ignoring a problem that obviously exists. "What harm could chronically homeless people over 55 do to children"?

Do you remember the experience of Elizabeth Smart and her abductors (both chronically homeless people over 55)?

Those of you with concerns about SaveOurKidsUtah's purposes in opposing this facility, please take time to look into Safe Walking Routes to Schools (Congress passed this legislation in July of 2005). One purpose is to eliminate some of the traffic entering our schools, thus making our kids safer as they arrive and when they leave. If parents must drive to ensure their childrens' safety, we are going backwards in our purposes. This is only one of the many safety issues we see. Please take a minute to re-examine your own ideas. We truly don't want to hurt homeless people, we just want to make sure that before a facility like this opens, neighbors are given the information they need, and other options are explored. Please drive by this site - the sky bridge on 3100 and Bangerter is the ONLY safe route over Bangerter for our kids. Are we really so callous in Utah that we don't care what children may be exposed to? People with unresolved substance abuse issues and serious mental health issues DO present a safety hazard to children.

More crimes against children are perpetrated by a family member or relative or a known acqaintance. Having worked with the homeless population, drug abusers, and both sex offenders and domestic violence perpetrators, while not condoning their past actions, how society treats these people makes it almost impossible for them to ever get a break to change their lives and become productive citizens. If they manage to get through their time in prison or jail and get on probation, having done their time, the discrimination against them has been such that a number of them see no hope, no future...the alternative would be to lock them up for life (but at what cost to house them forever?). When it comes to the homeless elderly, there are many different possibilities? We are not talking bums. We could be talking about family abandonment, where their children have left them. Hopefully more discussion and openness about this Program will enable the residents to make an objective decision about this important project of humanity.

I have been involved with this land since zoning was proposed, over 15 years ago. The initial request was for an Assisted Living Center. Later Valley Mental Health (VMH) modified this to just Senior Apartments. Four days before groundbreaking residents accidentally found out it had been changed to Senior Housing for the Chronically Homeless. When something happens with this magnitude of change, and the local residents are not informed, it generally means something bad.

Let me define the differences in housing.

Senior Housing: Grandma/Grandpa age 65+.

Senior Housing by VMH: Elderly, 65+, with mental illness that have been treated and are currently under professional care with needed medicines.

Senior Chronically Homeless: Age 55+, many with drug abuse, alcohol abuse and/or mental illness. Doctors care for issues, not required. Needed medication to control mental illness, not required. Screening criteria, background check for state of Utah only. Not allowed in this housing if they are currently on the National Sex Offender Registry or have been convicted of cooking Meth in government housing. Other criminal history does not exclude them from this housing.

Other facilities for Homeless are built in industrial areas to minimize the crime that has been documented to follow.

Do the people who are trying to stop this apartment complex for the homeless consider themselves Christian? Not very Christian behavior. Talk is cheap. Walk the walk.

Yes, there has been some harm to children done by the homeless. But I am guessing there has been far more harm done to children by religious leaders and missionaries. Are you also going to fight to stop churches from being built near schools because of the cases of priests, bishops, and missionaries molesting children? For every one case of a homeless person harming a child, are there 100 cases of a religious leader harming a child? 1,000? Isn't the real reason these people are fighting against this apartment complex because homeless people are different, not pretty, and not well-groomed?

Stop being unreasonable and irrational. This project is a great way to help people that really need it. Instead of looking down at these people, give thanks that you are not in this situation yourself. If you call yourself a Christian, start acting like it and support this project.

I am a parent of three kids who attend all of the school that surroud this proposed site of this facility, Granger High, West Lake Jr. High, and Hillsdale Elementary. My children deserve to be safe when they walk to school just like everyone elses children. This was originally supposed to be just senior living apartments and was changed to senior living for the cronically homeless without ANYONE in the area being made aware of the change. We found out by accident an I am convinced that it was not an oversite on the part of the city and the Salt Lake County Housing Authority. It was done in hopes that we would not find out until it is too late. The housing authority was not even aware of the schools that are in close proximity and completely anaware that school must have safe walking routes. They have not done any research into the impact this facility could have in a residential area. The housing authority is more concerned about the money they might lose over the safety of our kids. There is no amount of screening that can be done to guarantee it will not be harmful to kids.

Concerning the zoning of this facility, the initial request was for an Assisted Living Center. Later Valley Mental Health (VMH) modified this to just Senior Apartments. Four days before groundbreaking residents accidentally found out it had been changed to Senior Housing for the Chronically Homeless. When something happens with this magnitude of change, and the local residents are not informed, it generally means something bad.

Let me define the differences in housing.

Senior Housing: Grandma/Grandpa age 65+.

Senior Housing by VMH: Elderly, 65+, with mental illness that have been treated and are currently under professional care with needed medicines.

Senior Chronically Homeless: Age 55+, many with drug abuse, alcohol abuse and/or mental illness. Doctors care for issues, not required. Needed medication to control mental illness, not required. Screening criteria, background check for state of Utah only. Not allowed in this housing if they are currently on the National Sex Offender Registry or have been convicted of cooking Meth in government housing. Other criminal history does not exclude them from this housing.

Other facilities for Homeless are built in industrial areas to minimize the crime that has been documented to follow.

Jason Jones,

If you do allow this development to set foot into your neighborhood the group that claims they will screen and monitor behavior will only do so for a few years and then sell the project to someone else. That new owner will not abide by the guidelines currently being set up to appease concerns. If the development can't be stopped look into forcing the city to manage it. Currently Provo manages The Boulders, and they do a great job of keeping most problems in check. However, MY ADVICE TO YOU IS: get the 1100 people you claim to have behind you and storm city hall. Don't let those who claim you are being discriminatory discourage your fight. I guarantee if it was in their (those who claim you are a hater) backyards they would either move or fight. These apartments can be set up in other areas of the city.

Tab - Thanks for your compassion towards this population. But, please consider our children. We are not talking about 1 or 2 residents added to a community. We are talking about 70. When we place this many people with like problems in one place, I believe they may be at greater risk of re-offending, especially if there are a great number of people near-by who may be victimized. Maybe most of the people who would become residents here would be safe and harmless, but all it takes is one...one drug deal gone bad, one needle left in the parking lot, one child molester who is not on the registry. I think it would be worse for this population if that one incident occurred. What neighborhood, anywhere, would take them after something like that happened? I don't think this is the ideal situation for the chronically homeless. If we could see one factual study that showed otherwise, our fears may be lessened.