Margaret, the problem you describe is truly heart rending and so easily solved. Margaret you say you live in the Kingfield Neighborhood, I wonder how many churches in your neighborhood have at one time had sermons preached about the "Good Samaritan"? I would bet most of them. Yet how many leave their doors open at night so the homeless might come in from the cold and possibly pray?
I remember when we were fighting about the rail yard area of the LRT beside the Franklin Avenue Station; David Faye commented that the area was a "No Person Land" that did not belong to anyone. Mary Watson answered that NO it was not a "No Person Land". It had persons living under the bridges and they were not "No Persons" they were our persons. She and we thought the area should be turned into a thousand housing units but the powers thought it would be a good rail yard. Everyone knows we take better care of and are more interested in "cool" trains than in cold poor people. Perhaps the homeless can ride that train each night until morning. (Irony, not a serious suggestion) I can possibly understand the agnostic non-religious person not having much concern for homeless people, but I do not understand the "Good Christians" listening to sermons and talking piously this morning and then quacking at the thought of a homeless person desecrating their church. I guess they don't know that "Christian Church" has an all-together different meaning than in a building. A few of those people from affluent neighborhoods need to start thinking of poor homeless persons as "THEIR" persons. Remember what Monica Nilsson, director of Simpson Housing Services, said in that article "I probably knew about 17 people (who died) this year...Mike came from a white middle class suburb. Mike started out being one of those "persons' belonging to the middle class suburbs." Unfortunately those Suburban middle class people believed in Christian duty as a theory with weight on Sunday but not the rest of the week so Mike no longer was one of "theirs". Yes charity is an interesting theory for them. I also am very bothered by the Churches with their suburban congregations acting as if they are morally outraged by inner-city neighborhoods demanding that someone else help with the load. These sanctimonious hypocrites would not think of having a shelter in "Their" neighborhood, in their Church at night, or in their spare room. Many of these people live in four bedroom houses that are empty except for the couple. They also live in neighborhoods with R-1 Zoning and would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from being changed. They will go down town, call and exert political pressure, and even demand that the City Council address this problem and make those NIMBY neighborhoods in the inner-city open themselves for more shelters and supportive housing. "They" are all for building such housing in the "backyard", AS LONG AS IT IS NOT "THEIR" BACKYARD. Margaret, you talked about the Simpson House in your post, my neighborhood allowed Simpson to place a shelter for women in our neighborhood even though we already had almost seven hundred beds of supportive housing within 1/4 mile of it. City Law says you cannot have more than 32 beds in such an area; so as not to discriminate against the residents or that neighborhood's residents. I wonder which Church in your neighborhood would do the same. Because I am sure there are not more than 32 beds in your area. I guess they just do not have enough good Christians living down there, or in Kenwood, Linden Hills, and other neighborhoods. Yes, good liberal Christians from those neighborhoods believe in housing for the homeless, feeding the poor, and charity. Well at least in theory! No Margaret, you do not have to prove the obvious. It is absolutely obvious that there are homeless people in need, and obvious the County and State do not exercise their duty to the mentally ill. It is also maddeningly obvious that people will go to bed tonight feeling comfort and a little superior smugness for their good fortune and superior because they can feel compassion for others. Well at least in theory. Theories are nice enough to go away when they go to sleep or go off to their busy affluent life tomorrow. Theories also don't live down the street or in their backyard. After all God smiled on them and intended "they", (as his chosen people), would have advantages, like living in nice neighborhoods. Possibly because they are compassionate. They do not realize that they, (or a child), is only two or three heartbreaks and spats of bad luck from God's frown rather than his smile. Suggestions: 1) Pull the tax -free status from any Church unwilling to open its basement to homeless people. If they are not going to act like Christians then they should not be given tax breaks for being churches. Start taxing them to help pay for shelters down the street from them. You know, "help" them do their "Christian Duty". 2) Get as many poor people as possible into ownership situations. Get them some cushion against the hard realities of occasional bad luck and depression. 3) Open the Target Center and Dome for camping on the playing surface at night. They even have bathrooms. "We" own them and why in the hell did we pay for their roofs if not to keep people warm and dry. Sorry for the sermon, but it is Sunday. Jim Graham, Ventura Village >"Why is it the Mongols of this world always tell us >they're defending us against the Mongols?" TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ 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
