Heh.
I mean the releases. I don't mind Ivan. (I'm still laughing about the shout out he gave his opponent Bo Bennett when the media stiffed him during the televised debate a few weeks back.)
Anyhoo, it appears that Harmon pretty much based his statements on the information/opinions Ron Peabody released last week. Click right smack here for that post.
The spin is also Ivan's opportunity to say "screw the homeless." But, you know, in a nice way. And it's a chance for him to tell everyone - once again - that he's held every elected office in the area at one time or another. Although I went ahead and cut out his resume. Cause I'm a jerk.
Oh yeah, one more thing. In the interest of fairness, I should mention Harmon's other opponents. There's Rogero who loves the homeless; there's Padgett who tells everyone he was homeless; and there's some other guy who may or may not be homeless.
Here's Ivan's spin (my comments, as always, are in bold):
Knoxville citizens participating in Compassion Knoxville, had the opportunity to come up with a community based solution to chronic homelessness. (Yup, and they did.) Despite the noble intentions from which Compassion Knoxville sprung, the process was sabotaged with the involvement of special interest groups. It's unfortunate that these special interest groups would hijack this process for their own gain. What began as a healthy exchange of community ideas was impeded by the self serving stance of these these special interest advocates. (You just said the same thing in three different ways, yet gave no examples.)Out of 44 recommendations in the final report less than half are fully supported by the public comments. (Shout out to Ron Peabody - Thanks buddy for doing all the work for me!) The recommendations included in the report that were not inspired by comments from the community can be distilled down to two related ideas: more bureaucracy and additional government spending."I do not believe that increasing bureaucracy is a compassionate response to the issues facing our homeless" said Ivan Harmon. (In other words: You people suck!)Citizens have repeatedly stated they do not want a scattered site approach or permanent supportive housing, which is not economically sustainable. (We want shotgun shacks instead!)Harmon has long advocated that we need a substantive solution the the homeless problem, not just a temporary ascetic fix. Unfortunately, the heavily special interest group influenced report we have received is just that, an ascetic fix of more government without ever addressing the base issues causing chronic homelessness. (Let God sort 'em out!)"I want to thank every person that engaged in this process and contributed ideas and suggestions. As Mayor of Knoxville I will listen to your ideas and suggestions and not those of special interest groups." stated Harmon. (Thanks for wasting my time, fellas!)
One last thing. Before anyone gets on my ass about taking sides on this issue, I do have a disclaimer. I occasionally give money to the homeless folks. Cause I do feel sorry for them, and I imagine it pretty much sucks to be homeless. However, I require them do jumping jacks and push ups first.
41 comments:
I think this is Harmon's "substantive solution to the homeless problem", his way of moving Knoxville forward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almshouse
As he keeps saying, let the churches do it all. Gubment has no bidness in the homeless and no gubment oversight needs to be done. If them folks need hep, they just need to go to church.
Ascetic? I guess it's possible he actually meant that v. aesthetic, but I doubt it.
Anonymous said...
Read the study, did ya Mike?If you had you would know that several expensive ideas ( oh, like wet shelter,safety center , and mobile medical van)just kind of appeared without being mentioned in citizens comments? Kind of like magic, huh,Mike.However, I think I found the real source of the Magical mystery Van in King County Washington(please see below) ...Hmmm..That is Seattle and that is where Stephanie M worked her magic before...Hmmm....The Homeless Industry pushed a Veterans and Homeless Levy (that would be basically a levy or tax on every home in King County) that raised about $80 million in 2005-2011.They just renewed this plan and project raising $102 to $108 million in the next 6 years.They evidently sold it as a Veterans benefit although most admit the vets' portion is the distinct minority.That is where the Magical Mystery Van came from and the money to finance the Homeless Czar or Czarina too.Sounds like they want it here too ...Imagine....A department level Czar of Homelessness that prevents churches from serving their neighbors without APPROVAL from down town.Meanwhile, the HomelessControl Group gets to tax us and control all that money .By the way, it would be codified (that means illegal) to give food or services without having Czar APPROVAL... Gee , maybe that $20 you gave to a homeless citizen might violate the Czar's new codified rules. Gee, wouldn't want to buck the new Homeless Five Year Plan, would you Mike ?...Do you believe in magic, Mike?....Heh....Heh
South King County Mobile Medical Care for Homeless People)
Veterans and Human Services Levy
I hate to burst your bubble, but several people in the comments mentioned the need for an alternative to jail or said the homeless shouldn't just go to jail. That's easily translated into a safety center without betraying the intent. The remote medical van was proposed at the May 17 meeting at Westminster (a "medical roundup, like Remote Area Medical"). And even a "homeless tax" was mentioned at the May 11 Westminster meeting, though it wasn't included in the recommendations.
Ivan & Peabody are joined at the hip, so it's no surprise that Ivan's using Peabody's stuff.
I see that the KNS is out in force to defend Madeline Rogero. Ivan goes out with a press release against the TYP 2.0 and they say he can't think for himself and that he doesn't care about the homeless.
I am glad we have a candidate that is running for Mayor that is not catering to the service providers making six figures and just keeps taking more money from us.
What you all don't understand is there is no money, we can't afford the recommendation in this TYP 2.0 plan. I wsent to many of these town hall meetings and even the citizens that came to give there opinion were supporters of the former TYP 1.0 plan. The other citizens could barely speak. Stephany and Amy made sure that their supporters were there.
This was rigged by day one. It is easy to spend money on the organization if it is not your money. The citizens of this City and County are tired of being used by these service providers. If anyone wants to give there money then do so, but don't force the rest of the citizens to do so.
I give to the homeless organization as well as other non profits, but it is my choice to give not the governments to decide for me.
to the first anonymous poster: Yes, I do believe in magic. No I didn't read the study. No, I don't give a crap about reading the study. Why? Because it had nothing to do with my smart-ass post.
To the second anonymous poster: I find it laughable that you think I'm "out in force" to defend Rogero when I took a shot at her in the post, along with Padgett. (I take shots at all of them.)
I don't give a crap who wins the city mayoral race.
But, I do agree that the city can't afford this plan. Well, I mean if I read the plan, I'd probably agree.
Maybe the Devon Group and Talbott and Jurbran can build a homeless facility on that chunk of land where "Sentinel Tower" was supposed to be going. They could get something done over there a whole lot cheaper than $13.2 million and the folks they house would be very grateful.
The city cannot afford these pie in the sky plans for the homeless and why they would want to make Knoxville a destination for the homeless (yes build it and they will come, in droves) is well beyond me. Our city parks are full of transient peoples, many of them hungry, underfed, and in need of lots and lots of things, including mental health services, but we can't take care of our own citizens living in poverty (recent census indicates 1 in 7 city residents at or below the poverty line) let alone try and become a destination attraction for the homeless crowd.
Reality sucks, but the acts of kindness and the attempts at being charitable would be best left to those outside of city government.
I didn't mention Rogero or Harmon, and my opinion on this issue isn't dependent on who is for it or who is against it. I was responding to the anonymous poster who ranted about items he claimed, erroneously, were not in the public comments.
As for funding, the biggest obstacle isn't the city, which isn't broke by any stretch of the imagination, but the federal government, which isn't broke either but ain't in great shape. The program is heavily reliant on HUD, and its scope will be determined by the amount of HUD money is available. No HUD money, no new housing. Simple as that.
As for funding, the biggest obstacle isn't the city, which isn't broke by any stretch of the imagination, but the federal government, which isn't broke either but ain't in great shape.
The federal government isn't broke? There are no additional housing vouchers for years. You're talking pie in the sky.
Pie in the sky? I said new housing is dependent on federal dollars and that no federal dollars means no new housing. That's pretty realistic, if you ask me. Does that mean the TYP is bad or CK wasn't worth it? No. This is the way the city should move forward on homelessness, as funding allows. If funding can't be found because of federal budget cuts, then it doesn't grow. Pretty simple and prudent, if you ask me.
No, the federal government isn't broke. It can easily meet its financial obligations now. The federal problem is in long-term projections.
I said new housing is dependent on federal dollars and that no federal dollars means no new housing.
Then why does Madeline Rogero want to build more PSH?
I don't know that Rogero even said that (source, please), but if she did I would hope that she agrees with me on the federal funding aspect. Since she dealt with federal funding as Haslam's community development director, I imagine she has a pretty good understanding of how it works and its importance to getting these types of projects done. If she doesn't, she shouldn't be mayor. Same goes for Harmon and Padgett.
I don't know that Rogero even said that (source, please), but if she did I would hope that she agrees with me on the federal funding aspect
You are asking the public to do reporting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3OpiddI1oM
I watched the video and you have mischaracterized what she said. She said she supports PSH. She did not address what would happen if federal funds aren't available, but every person I've talked to who is involved in the TYP has said that if federal funds aren't available, new housing won't be built.
She did not address what would happen if federal funds aren't available.
Why are you defending Madeline Rogero? Her words were clear.
Geez, dude, I'm not defending anybody. I'm just pointing out what I saw in your link. You never answered my question about your participation in CK. You're not only hiding behind anonymity, you're intellectually dishonest to boot.
Geez, dude, I'm not defending anybody.
She did not address what would happen if federal funds aren't available.
Rogero wants PSH. You defend her saying what she didn't say.
Nine, you are soooo tiresome. I'm not defending Rogero, though I do agree with her that PSH is the best way to address the issue. What I am saying - and what you are refusing to hear - is that I would hope she (and the other candidates and everyone else involved) would acknowledge that without federal funding new PSH won't happen.
is that I would hope she (and the other candidates and everyone else involved) would acknowledge that without federal funding new PSH won't happen.
You are putting words in Rogero's mouth. She was very clear about PSH. What you hope is not relevant. You are defending Rogero from what she said with her own mouth.
You are nuts. Absolutely nuts.
You are nuts. Absolutely nuts.
Because I take Madeline Rogero at her word? Instead of letting you translate what you think she should have said?
Because you twist words.
Because you twist words.
Where?
You said I put words in Rogero's mouth, when I was clearly expressing what I hope her (and other candidates') position would be on the possible loss of federal money.
You said I put words in Rogero's mouth, when I was clearly expressing what I hope her (and other candidates') position would be on the possible loss of federal money.
There you go again.
Possible loss? The money is already gone. There are no new housing vouchers. How do they plan to fill Flenniken?
Why are you covering for Rogero?
She said what she said. You can't unring the bell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3OpiddI1oM
You are incorrect about housing vouchers. In fact, this year KCDC got 25 vouchers set aside specifically for homeless veterans. They aren't adding new people to the waiting list (though there are excpetions, including those who are homeless through no fault of their own or by government action). But they still have Section 8 money and are issuing new vouchers as the fortunate ones roll out of the program.
But they still have Section 8 money and are issuing new vouchers as the fortunate ones roll out of the program.
Aren't the number of KCDC vouchers static?
No, they are not static. HUD gives KCDC a pot of money from which to issue Section 8 vouchers. People apply to KCDC for the vouchers. Each applicant has a different income level, and Section 8 vouchers are based on income, so the number and dollar amount of vouchers varies. As I said previously, the super committee might slash HUD funding for Section 8, but for now KCDC's Section 8 program is still in effect. The problem is, unfortunately there are many more people in need of affordable housing than there is money for the vouchers.
No, they are not static.
Then that means that KCDC got more vouchers this past year? You wrote about there were new vouchers. New, as in additional?
Yes, they got enough to provide 25 vouchers designated for homeless veterans only.
Again, HUD does not send a specific number of vouchers to KCDC. HUD sends money for the Section 8 program. KCDC then issues the vouchers, which vary in amount due to the income of the recipient.
HUD sends money for the Section 8 program. KCDC then issues the vouchers, which vary in amount due to the income of the recipient.
Then why was Flenniken built? Unless you can say that HUD will send KCDC more money next year it will be impossible to fill Flenniken. Why did you write an editorial praising Compassion Knoxville when they ignored the fact that no additional HUD money is coming?
Is the plan for the City of Knoxville to create homeless housing vouchers with city money?
I have never heard anyone suggest the city create a housing vouchers program.
Flenniken was built because there's a need,and some categories of homeless people get priority in the Section 8 program - that is, they can be added to the waiting list and move to the top in some instances.
The possibility that HUD's budget would be cut sugnificantly didn't arise until this summer's debt limit fiasco, which was well after Flenniken renovations began. Unless the Section 8 program is cut altogether, there will be some money in the coming years, just not as much as currently available. If the program is completely cut, we're going to have a much bigger homeless problem than we have now.
Flenniken was built because there's a need,and some categories of homeless people get priority in the Section 8 program - that is, they can be added to the waiting list and move to the top in some instances.
Wasn't Flenniken for the chronically homeless? Don't tell us that $7 million dollars was spent when KCDC could have built four times the number of apartments for the same money.
Good move. Make an assertion, and when shown to be wrong change the subject. Flenniken was built for the chronically homeless and I have heard no reason to believe that it will be used for any other purpose.
Make an assertion, and when shown to be wrong change the subject.
Wrong? MinVilla cannot be filled now because there are no housing vouchers. How is that wrong?
Um, because there ARE housing vouchers.
Um, because there ARE housing vouchers.
I guess you are saying that Ginny Weatherstone is wrong them.
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=178470
"The voucher system is problematic, there are more people in need of housing than there are vouchers," Ginny Weatherstone, the Chief Executive Officer of The Volunteer Ministry Center said.
You've made mistakes in what you have claimed. Should you be writing editorials if you understand so little about the subject?
When will you break down and blame George Bush?
Well, she said the same thing I did - there are more people than there are vouchers. That's not the same thing as saying there are no vouchers.
I got my information from Alvin Nance, by the way, who is the absolute best source for KCDC and Section 8 information. Nance is the one who told me about the new vouchers for homeless veterans. He also explained that new vouchers are issued as people leave Section 8 housing for whatever reason. The WBIR story noted that more than half those on the waiting list are believed to be homeless, so I would imagine the will receive vouchers as money becomes available. He told me that saying there are no vouchers is incorrect.
You have been so consistently wrong on the facts that you are hardly in a position to question my knowledge of the subject.
And I don't blame Bush. After all, he was the guy who put the emphasis on ten year plans and permanent supportive housing.
Well, she said the same thing I did - there are more people than there are vouchers. That's not the same thing as saying there are no vouchers.
She said the same thing you did? Can you really say you have been straight forward in what you have written? No amount of word play will change the facts. There are no vouchers to fill MinVilla and Flenniken.
They don't exist.
They do exist, as I explained above and will explain again, typing slowly this time so you can understand.
But first, yes, Weatherstone said the exact same thing I said. The vouchers exist but are being used, as there are too many people in need for the amount of money available. Just because demand is greater than supply doesn't mean there's no supply.
As people move out of the Section 8 program (through death, moving into a group facility, moving out because they got a job, whatever), the money for their rent is freed up and goes to new vouchers for clients on the waiting list, many of whom are homeless. That's not my explanation - that's KCDC executive director Alvin Nance's explanation. Are you saying you know more about the voucher system than Alvin Nance? Seriously?
Post a Comment