THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, October 9, 1996 TAG: 9610090389
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DAVE ADDIS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: VIRGINIA BEACH LENGTH: 82 lines
The idea of building a permanent, city-financed shelter for the homeless faded Tuesday when a staff committee recommended to City Council a daytime-only service center and a patchwork of aid programs run by nonprofit and religious organizations.
The reaction among government and private-sector activists for the homeless ranged from glum acceptance of the political realities of the issue, to an accusation that the new plan contains ``nothing whatsoever for the homeless.''
The discussion, which began at the City Council's weekly informal briefing and spilled into an anteroom afterward, was a condensed version of two years of frustrating debate over how to spend $800,000 from a federal grant for capital expenditures to help the homeless.
Evident in questions from council members were their enduring fears of constituent reaction should a homeless shelter be located permanently in a district they represent. Activists, meanwhile, were discouraged that their dream of a central facility for housing and helping the homeless seems lost.
``This stinks,'' said an angered Brenda McCormick, a longtime activist for the homeless. ``This is about as low as we can go. There is nothing whatsoever in this for the homeless. This is $800,000 worth of extra money to get nothing.''
``Brenda, we call it a compromise,'' countered Teresa Stanley, the social minister of St. Nicholas Catholic Church and another dedicated advocate. ``With this, people who can move forward will move forward.''
What Stanley referred to was the the approach recommended by the city staff, which favors job assistance, training, education, transportation and self-sufficiency over a cot-and-a-soup-bowl approach to helping the homeless.
The recommendation, she said, is ``a step forward.''
Andrew M. Friedman, the city's director of housing and neighborhood preservation, outlined the latest recommendation for a combined government/private-sector approach to the homeless question. It included five initiatives:
A ``day-service center'' - specifically not a residence shelter - to be developed with $375,000 of the federal grant and operated on $60,000 a year from the city's general fund. Friedman said no location had been chosen, and admitted that he could not guarantee that the center could be developed and operated with the funds assigned to it.
``Transitional housing units'' to be occupied by homeless individuals until they are back on their feet. These would be at sites scattered throughout the city - possibly low-cost townhouses purchased and operated by private, nonprofit organizations with $325,000 from the federal grant and whatever funds could be collected through modest rents.
Purchase of vehicles, for $50,000 from the federal grant, to transport the homeless among the service center, the transitional housing units, and, hopefully, jobs. It was unclear who would own and operate the vehicles.
Continuation of the Winter Shelter Program, through which local religious organizations provide wintertime food and shelter for the needy. About 400 people are assisted through that program each year.
And $50,000 from the federal grant to help the Judeo-Christian Outreach Center develop an education and health-services center.
Noting that there are ``several problems, several possible solutions, but no single answer'' to the issue, Friedman emphasized that the committee's approach would preserve ongoing programs that help the homeless and would emphasize a ``continuum of opportunity to meet (their) needs.''
In a nod to the ``NIMBY'' difficulties - the Not In My Back Yard objections that often arise over the location of homeless shelters - Friedman said: ``The geographical dispersion of activities will more likely be acceptable than one site.''
City Council members took no action, as the briefing was offered at an informal session. Their concerns generally followed two lines: that the initiatives are aimed primarily at single homeless persons, rather than families, and that steps be taken to ensure safety and tranquillity in neighborhoods where the transitional housing will be located.
McCormick, the advocate for the homeless, was clearly frustrated after the session. ``There is still no everyday shelter for the homeless,'' she complained. That had been the goal of a Homeless Advisory Committee, of which she was a member.
``We've tried 100 things and everything has been shot down,'' said Daniel Stone, the city's director of social services. ``Every proposal for a shelter has been shot down one way or another'' over the past three years.
``So what do you do?'' he said. ``You do the best you can.''
KEYWORDS: HOMELESS SHELTER VIRGINIA BEACH by CNB