I am sure Jeff Carlson means well, but his post was mistaken. Dan Prozinski did not even mention Peace House. Dan commented on MY post defending Peace House. Dan seemed to be concerned with the outrageous fees charged for a mat on the floor by predatory "non-profit" organizations seeking to exploit unfortunate people. Dan also seemed to have a concern for housing inebriates in the midst of numerous establishments serving alcohol. I do not think of this as NIMBY, I think of it more as someone concerned that an alcoholic person be given, (as much as possible), a chance for recovery.
Since Dan had favorably commented on a posting I made defending Peace House, I think he is due an apology. I had drawn a distinction BETWEEN "Supportive Housing" and Peace House and had pointed out that many of those using Peace House were the "victims" of concentrating "supportive housing". Addicted people deserve a chance for recovery. That recovery is nearly impossible when in the middle of temptation. That is not NIMBY, that is reality and that is caring. That is also why we need to break down the barriers of "Fortress" neighborhoods. This would allow people the opportunity to be in a healthy, more nurturing environment, away from such temptation. Recovery, of course, removes people from the "client" roles of the non-profit suppliers. Such programs are almost predicated upon recidivism. A really successful "provider" program might eventually put itself out of business. Many people recovering would reduce their profitability. We really need organizations who are more interested in putting themselves out of business, than interested in their ability to fundraise and get Hennepin County Shelter funds. Homeless people being given the opportunity and training to be homeowners might also hurt the profitability of such "Non-Profits". A study of homeless veterans found "supportive" homeownership as the best vehicle to stabilize those persons' lives. The annual report of one "Non-Profit" rental housing provider in the area listed an increase in homeownership as the greatest threat to the interests of that Corporation. I found this amusing until having given it some thought, then I became outraged by the insensitivity and callousness of such a statement. Sister Rose, of Peace House, was someone who was interested in uplifting people from misery, not in "maintaining" them in it. Sister Rose was most happy when hearing of one of her people succeeding in rising out of that condition. Tiny, little Sister Rose would have "lifted" the whole Avenue out on her shoulders if it were only possible. Sister Rose was not there to keep people, Rose was there to act as the ladder for people to climb up to get out. Short as she was, she provided the longest step, the first one. Social activism demands that we care about the "person", not the institution. It does not demand that we succeed in every fight, every time. Social activism's only demand is that we be willing to try. Every time! Jim Graham, Ventura Village P.S. For Paul Weir: What's faster than a speeding bullet? Mohammed Ali was sooo fast, he could turn out the light and be in bed before it got dark. Some people can drive down Franklin without seeing a drug dealer. Which is faster? _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
