Ensley Highlands Rejects Plan To Provide Housing For Homeless
Okay, let’s see if I understand this. Reconciler Development, Inc., affiliated with Church of the Reconciler (United Methodist), wanted to repair and renovate abandoned houses in an Ensley neighborhood in order to provide housing for mentally and physically healthy homeless people. These are the folks who find themselves homeless after a major crisis — maybe job loss or unexpected medical expenses — and just need a little time and assistance to get back on their feet. They’re not part of the chronically homeless population, whose members frequently suffer from mental illness and/or addiction.
Reconciler officials said sex offenders would be prohibited and people on probation or parole would not be allowed to live in the houses. Residents would be supervised and subject to random drug testing.
The City of Birmingham wanted to partner with the group and planned to buy abandoned houses and renovate them so they are up to code, said the Rev. R. Lawton Higgs, president of the group’s board of directors.
Residents opposed to the proposal said they feared their property values would drop and that undesirables would move into the neighborhood.
So Reconciler and the City of Birmingham want to take dilapidated housing, renovate it, make the neighborhood look better, and provide homes for people needing a hand up. And Ensley Highlands residents turned down the opportunity because they were afraid their property values would go down?
This sounds like a knee-jerk Not In My Back Yard reaction, although, as it’s not my back yard, maybe I shouldn’t criticize. But I know Lawton Higgs, one of the finest, most compassionate people in Birmingham, and I know he has the experience in working with homeless people to make good decisions about who would qualify for the housing. This proposal could be a big win-win for the neighborhood, and it makes me sad that Ensley Highlands turned it down.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
i dunno. i think i’m with the ensley highlands folks here.
i don’t care how many promises they might make, i would vote against allowing any type of business inside my neighborhood. and that’s all this is.
also, if this is the area i think it is - along bush blvd - there are not many empty houses. it’s a nice old neighborhood.
April 12th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I would want to know more about the level of supervision. My church, which is also my near neighbor, is dedicated to helping the homeless and houses IHN (Interfaith Hospitality Network) families in rotation with other area churches. But there is never any question of handing the families the keys to the building. The church lines up “hosts” who are with them every minute, cooking meals for them, playing with the kids—but also sleeping there all night. And I don’t know the details but I think there are very strict rules for the participants, stuff like curfew. Clearly, there can be, and probably have been, problems. I don’t mean to say that every homeless family is a bunch of ne’er-do-wells, and God knows even people who own their homes can be terrible neighbors (I am facing EAST as I type). But I agree with Wheeler that this kind of operation can go bad very quickly. Plus, who wants that kind of turnover next door?
April 12th, 2007 at 11:33 am
When it comes to the issue of the homeless, I still shake my head in disbelief that there is such an issue in this country. But then I remember that my mother and I were homeless when I was a teenager after my father left us and how easily it all happened.
Why can’t rich people build houses for the homeless? Why? Why can’t the government house them? And yes, I realize that’s what “the projects” are for. At least that’s what they are referred to in my neck of Alabama.
But all PollyAnna-ish that it may be, have you ever thought that if all the mega rich just gave a million each, surely you could house all the people who don’t have homes. Of course, that’s an impossible dream, but I just can’t help but thinking it.
So now I’ll wait for y’all to rip me a new one for being so silly. LOL
April 12th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Wheeler, this is supposed to be permanent, not transitional, housing, so what makes it different from rental housing? It sounds a lot like Habitat’s concept, except these folks are renovating existing housing rather than building from scratch.
Del, same thing — permanent housing, shouldn’t have lots of turnover. And while any neighbors can go bad, good ones would seem to be much better than living next door to an abandoned house.
April 12th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
i don’t like rentals, either.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
[...] Kathy at Birmingham Blues points out an interesting story in today’s Birmingham News. Her post from earlier today discusses the recent decision by the Ensley Highlands neighborhood association to not support a proposal by Reconciler Development, Inc., an affiliate of the Church of the Reconciler, to renovate several abandoned homes in the neighborhood. This article previously posted on the News’ site but available on Knowledgeplex.org provides a little more background on the issue. [...]
April 12th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Permanent? Habitat’s permanent, which includes a lot of “sweat equity,” is that you own the house. This doesn’t sound like that at all.
…to provide housing for mentally and physically healthy homeless people; that is, people who are down on their luck and need a permanent home and reliable transportation to get to work.
Yes, I see the word “permanent,” but I took that to mean as opposed to renting by the week in some crummy hotel. If they’re going to be supervising and conducting random drug testing, it sounds like a temporary program to me. Kind of like IHN actually, with the idea that once you’ve saved up enough for a rental deposit, you move out and let somebody else benefit from the program.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I remember once when I was a young lad and just joined the Army, my young bride and I went to look for a place to live. We saw some really nice new apartments and asked to take a look. The place was spacious and immaculate, plus all the cars in the driveways were newer than mine and more expensive. Able bodied families frolicked happily in the streets and it looked like a good place to live. When I asked for an application, they asked where I worked, I told them, and they promptly replied that I would not qualify for the housing since I made too much money! That’s when the clue bird took a big shit on my head and informed me they were low income housing. Silly me, I thought the HUD projects were built in with bars on the windows and couches on the porch looking out over a weedy gravel covered yard. I ended up renting a place that cost more than the BAH the Army gave me. Plus the place was in ten times worse condition and smaller in size.
Now I realize this is probably the exception for low income housing, but I know it is not the only one like it. These weren’t handicapped people or incapable people. It wasn’t even an overly expensive area to live. The point is, what incentive are we giving people to improve themselves? Like I said in your thread about the minimum wage, throwing money at poverty isn’t solving anything in the long run. I am sure Anna’s situation is not unique and I agree that the homeless problem is a sad thing in today’s day and age. But rather than asking rich folks to build homes and the government to create more programs to screw up, shouldn’t we look at helping people help themselves. I think there is some old saying about giving a person a fish vs. teaching them to fish. Sort of applies to this thread. That is why I think those programs that incorporate education and employment opportunities to their housing will have a better effect than just throwing up homes for people to live in. I also find it interesting that has much as we think things are so bad in the U.S., at least we can boast that our many of poor people are fat! It is still better to be poor in the U.S. than any other country.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Here’s a link to an article with more info on what would have been required of the residents:
“Only three unrelated people would live in a house and each person would be mentally and physically healthy, he said. No one on parole or probation would be allowed and sex offenders would be prohibited.
…The group also will establish a committee to oversee the homes. Representatives from the city, the church and the Reconciler Development Board also would investigate and review complaints, Higgs said.
…The church group will help the residents get jobs that pay at least $10 an hour, and 30-35 percent of their pay would go toward rent and utilities. To get workers to their jobs, transportation will be provided, Higgs said.
Residents will be expected to participate in monthly neighborhood meetings and to join in on Ensley Highlands projects, such as community cleanups, Higgs said. To reassure neighbors, each house resident would have to submit to regular drug testing.”
It’s moot anyway. Even though Reconciler didn’t need neighborhood approval to go forward, it’s going to look elsewhere. Which speaks volumes to me about the high level of integrity of the people involved.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
BL, I didn’t see your comment till I had already posted the above, but I think the info addresses some of your concerns. This would not be housing for the chronically unemployed; the residents would be required to work and pay rent (at least I’m assuming it’s treated as rent; the article doesn’t make it clear whether this is a path to ownership). Provision of transportation, which is part of the plan, is a necessity in Birmingham, with our poor to nonexistent public transportation.
I agree with you completely that education and employment opportunities are essential parts of successful anti-poverty programs. The comments about weight are a bit gratuitous. No, most poor people in this country aren’t starving, but they frequently live in areas where there’s not much access to fresh fruits and vegetables or reliable transportation to decent grocery stores (Birmingham being a case in point). Those fruits and vegetables are relatively expensive; starchy junk food is cheap and filling. Not a recipe for healthy living.
April 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
That fat comment was a “snarky” comment designed to catch attention. I realize you have some good points about the vegetables and fruit, but I know the system could be utilized better than it is. Fact is also that a lathargic lifestyle probably contributes just as much to the obesity as improper lifestyle. In my travels I rarely saw obese people in the 2nd and 3rd world countries, even among the affluent that had money for food. Eating in the U.S. has become a way of life for some folks rather than a means of survival. But I am way off subject here.
I agree this project sounds like a reasonable concept with the right mindset for solving rather than feeding the problem. Check out a lady by the name of Ruby Payne, she has some interesting thoughts on pulling people out of poverty. The things I have heard about her are really promising and it sounds like she has some unique ways to understand poverty and helping people out of it. Too bad more people didn’t take her approach to things.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Poor people are fat? Are you out of your effing mind?
Go read about obesity and the several causes. The way the body stores and uses fat, muscle, etc. You can go without food for a while and still be overweight. You must have zero knowledge about dieting and the overweight.
And the rich giving to the poor isn’t a stupid idea. It’s called charity. It’s called I’ve got so much and others have so little, why wouldn’t I want to help? Throwing money at poverty is a solution. Of course, those with the money wouldn’t believe so they are seemingly so greedy.
All the cars were newer than yours huh? Maybe you should have told your CO you needed to work extra hours in the mess hall to work that 60 hour week and then you wouldn’t have had to be envious. Your rent being more than your BAH was your own fault. You should have lived in military housing for free or had your wife work lots of OT at her job to pay the difference in your rent.
Don’t make assumptions about my situation being unique. You have absolutely no idea about my life and you obviously would have no idea how to deal with the choices I have had to make in life. I seriously hope you never end up homeless or living in poverty. You’d be in big trouble.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Anna-
Let me help you comprehend my comments. There is a difference between obesity and atrittion of muscle due to starvation or low food intake. I was not talking about that. You must have zero knowledge about exercise and activity otherwise you would not have made your comment. My point (if you actually read my posts) was generalizing purposefully to make a point. As with any generality you can find exceptions. But for every person you find matching your example, I will find ten that are obese due to over-eating and lathargic behavior.
As for the charity question, yes charity is a good thing. However, government forcing redistribution is not charity. Friedrich Engels co-wrote a great book about your plan, go check it out. Charity should be that and we can’t and shouldn’t force people to do it. The great thing about a free country is that people can’t tell others what to do with their money. Also, if throwing money at poverty is a solution, then why do we still have poverty? We have been throwing billions of dollars at it each year. The only reason it is low in the U.S., is because of capitalism and the free market. Check out poverty in the rest of the world and you will see my point. Understanding poverty and feeling sympathy for people in poverty should go hand in hand when trying to solve the problem. One without the other doesn’t help.
As for my auto choice, you completely missed the point and I am not surprised. First, I chose a car within my means and could afford it. Too many people choose a car out of their means and live in debt. Along with poor budgeting and credit card debt, many people keep themselves in poverty because of their own actions. As for the BAH question, housing wasn’t available on post, so I had to go off. BAH is historically out of whack with the civilian situation around most posts. Also, thanks for the 60 hour a week suggestion. I rarely have a week when I don’t work 60 hours. Then include deployments and exercises the annual average would easily exceed that. I accounted for the BAH difference with good budgeting and discipline, a little something others should try. Thanks for the suggestion though, I appreciate the “two cents”.
As for your hope that I “never end up homeless or living in poverty. You’d be in big trouble”. Thanks again for the best wishes. We have all had hardships, saying I would be in big trouble is ridiculous. Based on my own past and experiences I know I would be just fine.
Phrase for the day “clueless apathy”.