« Tonight's Republican Debate | Main | Pat Robertson On Yoga »
November 29, 2007
For Chattanoogans
You need to be aware of this news, and then check out this opinion.
It will be a sad day for MLK and Chattanooga politics once this project reaches fruition because there is very little you or I can do to stop it. The lines have already been drawn and the majority of the City Council doesn’t care because it’s not in their Districts. If this agenda was pushed onto Brainerd or Hixson, the whole city would be up in arms, shouting “Not in my backyard.” But as it stands, no one has come to MLK’s rescue. They are our neighbors and deserve a stronger vote in the process. I spend a great deal of time in MLK and as far as I’m concerned, it is my backyard.
At the center of this issue lies Ron Littlefield’s self-proclaimed “legacy project” - a narcissistic desire to paint himself as the great mayor with a heart of gold. It’s no secret that the Farmer’s Market campus is his pet project. This is intended to be his one great contribution to the Chattanooga narrative.
Ron Littlefield is going down in history as Chattanooga's Worst Mayor Ever. And this disaster of a project will only add to that legacy, while it tears down a great up-and-coming neighborhood. That is, unless we can figure out a way to stop it. Does anyone have any ideas?
Posted by alice at November 29, 2007 08:36 PM
Comments
Alice,
i'm no fan of RL - voted for Coulter in fact... But, I'm curious to know how this project tears down an up-and-coming neighborhood. Do you mean that literally (are they condemning homes for eminent domain?), figuratively in the sense of bringing undesireables into the neighborhood, or figuratively in some other sense?
Taking the location out of the equation - do you disagree with the idea that a centralized umbrella organization able to provide all of the services needed to homeless people will be more effective aid to them? If you agree with the idea of having such a centralized service but just disagree with the location - what location would you support?
Posted by: smijer at November 30, 2007 01:55 PM
But, I'm curious to know how this project tears down an up-and-coming neighborhood. Do you mean that literally (are they condemning homes for eminent domain?), figuratively in the sense of bringing undesireables into the neighborhood, or figuratively in some other sense?
I mean that by creating a one-stop homeless center for services, the homeless will become concentrated in that one area (and could actually increase in number), taking a neighborhood that has been making a lot of progress lately and plunging it back into a struggle to maintain order.
Taking the location out of the equation - do you disagree with the idea that a centralized umbrella organization able to provide all of the services needed to homeless people will be more effective aid to them? If you agree with the idea of having such a centralized service but just disagree with the location - what location would you support?
Instead of sinking an incredible amount of money into building a huge homeless services center, I'd like to see us take that money and spend it on helping the homeless. I don't think a centralized location for all services is necessarily a good thing, although it will accomplish one of Littlefield's goals, which is to move the homeless "problem" out of our city's center and into a less visible part of downtown.
Posted by: alice at November 30, 2007 02:17 PM
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that a centralized center for homeless services has some advantages in terms of providing better assistance. It can be regrettable for the nearby communities, but it doesn't have to be all burden, all the time. If, once the deal is done & the facility is there, the community chooses to embrace it - to look at it as an opportunity to serve the homeless community without having to leave their own neighborhood, it could have positives for both those needing the assistance and for the cohesiveness of the host community.
Posted by: smijer at November 30, 2007 05:58 PM
smijer, I'm no expert either, but I've made a few observations. I took a friend to the emergency room last year and was horrified at what I found there (it was at Erlanger) -- people languished for hours, some of them in extreme discomfort, and a lot of the people waiting for treatment seemed to suffer from a mental problem, rather than an immediate medical issue.
I've since discussed the experience with several friends who work in medicine and everyone mentioned the same problem, which is that the more a hospital puts into their emergency care, the more people show up to take advantage of it. So, hospitals are constantly working at that cost/benefit ratio, trying to find the point where they provide adequate care without encouraging more business, since emergency care in the United States is never a profitable (or even break-even) part of the hospital business. ERs generate huge losses for hospitals, especially public hospitals like Erlanger (who often have to pass on the losses to the taxpayers who subsidize them).
I think dealing with homelessness works in much the same way. The more we sink into buildings and bandaids (especially high profile bandaids that attract more needy people), the more the programs will cost us, without really easing the suffering of the people we're trying to help. What we need to be doing is addressing the root causes of the problems -- in the case of the ER, we need to deliver basic health care coverage to everyone, so that people get primary care instead of waiting until they need urgent care. And in the case of the homeless, we need to address the causes of homelessness -- treatment for mental illness, care for our veterans, and creating more low-cost housing, for example -- rather than spending money on the symptoms of homelessness. For by doing the latter, we're just spending money, without actually doing anything to ease the problem.
Posted by: alice at November 30, 2007 09:56 PM