I was late signing into the Council meeting. I echo Karen's words. I have been searching for the most recent proposal by West Warwick re: Homeless. I believe the original proposal was to fine the people but has been removed. For a small state, there are too many publications so I've spent too much time trying to find the info.
I have said (somewhere) to leave their property alone. I'm pretty sure that Cranston can find someplace to store their belongings. Destroying anything creates more problems for these folks. Why should the City make their lives harder? Most of them have probably already used sources to get a license, a birth certificate, etc. Destroying sends them right back to the end of the line. They will never get ahead. It stymies any effort to lift them up. We're going to recreate the same problems. Time is a'wasting. They're not moving forward nor is the City whose time would be better spent looking for a solution for a change. Find a place to store their goods, let them know where, give them a receipt and 90 days to pick it up. Allow them access so if they need paperwork, they can retrieve it.
The Mayor (Hizzoner) spouts a tune of 'giving'. I can't be the only one who has heard his story of finding an apartment for someone at Christmas, of he and his family getting them settled and with gifts for the holiday. Whether he did or didn't, I'm sure he embellished it. He's good at that (thinking of the 'bought a car' story). His lack of compassion and understanding is always on display. His way is the only way. Thinking outside of the box is foreign. Frankly, every time he says something, I think of Trump. Selfish, self-centered, ego-maniacal, and finds someone else to shift the blame to. His primary target is the Council because it's more 'blue' than 'red'. The Council does what it's elected to do. It listens to the constituents and then brings it up as an item to be addressed. Whether the councilperson agrees or not, if there's enough outcry, he/she will bring it up and seek a solution. If it's 'blue', he will stonewall. The Budlong Pool is a perfect example.
There are more than enough empty buildings that could be retrofitted into a shelter in our cities and towns. Many are on or right off a main street that has a RIPTA line. In Warwick, Aldrich school has been empty for several years and is now looking derelict. It's on the busline, across from Walmart and near other stores. There another empty building in Providence, right off of Allens Ave. near the Cranston line. It's an area of small factories and offices. There's not much traffic, doesn't appear to be near housing or schools. Since both are on buslines, there is no need for many of the services incorporated. They can hop a bus and go into downtown Prov. It would make it easier for social workers and such as people would be more clustered and accessible.
Cranston was never designed for this. It was and is a suburb. It was an escape from the tenements of Providence as immigrants and WW2 vets moved in. There have been decades of poor planning. Reservoir Ave. is lined with houses that have been turned into businesses that come and go.
The Governor and Mayor are joined at the hip despite being of different parties. The Governor won't commit and the Mayor refuses to listen. The pallet shelters in Providence were to open in the spring (2024), then the late summer, then Dec. 1st, and now it's Dec. 31st. The Governor has the power to cut the red tape but doesn't. Echo Village is poorly designed. The shelters are too close together with little to no access for emergency vehicles.
I know - I'm old, I'm cranky (which is something new), and I ramble. I have pointed out empty buildings elsewhere. My intent is not to push off the problems elsewhere. The 2 places I mentioned I've driven by (I don't go out often). I am angry. I'm angry at myself. I've lived here all of my life but I didn't pay attention. I keep telling my now middle-aged kids (both live in Cranston) to not follow in my footsteps. Pay attention. If you see something, say something. Don't wait because it may be too late.
Thank you for your continued diligence covering this issue, Steve. And thanks to the ACLU for going on record with a comprehensive explanation of why this ordinance should be rejected by the Council. (Not that this has not all been patiently explained to the Mayor numerous times already).
It is obvious at this point that Mayor Hopkins is not the sort of person who likes to think very hard about complex policy issues, to seek and listen to the advice of experts in the field or to listen to the people who will actually be impacted by his policy decisions. He also doesn’t seem to be inclined towards looking for models that have been implemented with good results by comparable municipalities. Unfortunately, he tends more towards the dramatic gesture pulled off the rack from the outrage generation machine that is today’s national GOP. The idea is to convey the appearance of action without the hard work or results of actual problem solving. And it’s best to do it right around campaign season when a problem like homelessness, which has been an emergency for a long time, suddenly becomes a hair on fire situation.
When the mayor originally introduced his ordinance months ago, the council listened to the experts and instead of just rejecting the ordinance, tabled it for a few months and and formed a committee to study the issue and provide recommendations. I don’t know whatever happened with that committee, but the mayor waited a few days, and then issued a plainly illegal emergency order, and then proceeded to campaign on the issue and to misrepresent what the council actually did. And now comes a new ordinance, that still has most of the same problems. This is days after the Republican council members launched a dishonest and hyperbolic attack on a council proposal to provide a developer with tax stabilization agreements to create a miniscule number of new housing units (including a small percentage of “affordable” units on parcels that are currently undeveloped and providing little or no revenue to the city. The council president and the developer responded by pulling the proposal from the docket for tonight’s council meeting.
The GOP council minority is appalled by these tax deals for corporations when they’re building housing but apparently they (and the mayor) do TSAs all the time with corporate and commercial developers.
The mayor/GOP council’s housing policy is pretty simple. One: Do nothing to increase the supply of affordable housing in Cranston, which isn’t close to meeting state-mandated new housing and when (if memory serves) something like half of all Cranston residents are rent or mortgaged burdened. Two: Demonize homeless people and try to push the out into neighboring communities.
Cranston has real housing problems that demand real solutions not political theater.
I was late signing into the Council meeting. I echo Karen's words. I have been searching for the most recent proposal by West Warwick re: Homeless. I believe the original proposal was to fine the people but has been removed. For a small state, there are too many publications so I've spent too much time trying to find the info.
I have said (somewhere) to leave their property alone. I'm pretty sure that Cranston can find someplace to store their belongings. Destroying anything creates more problems for these folks. Why should the City make their lives harder? Most of them have probably already used sources to get a license, a birth certificate, etc. Destroying sends them right back to the end of the line. They will never get ahead. It stymies any effort to lift them up. We're going to recreate the same problems. Time is a'wasting. They're not moving forward nor is the City whose time would be better spent looking for a solution for a change. Find a place to store their goods, let them know where, give them a receipt and 90 days to pick it up. Allow them access so if they need paperwork, they can retrieve it.
The Mayor (Hizzoner) spouts a tune of 'giving'. I can't be the only one who has heard his story of finding an apartment for someone at Christmas, of he and his family getting them settled and with gifts for the holiday. Whether he did or didn't, I'm sure he embellished it. He's good at that (thinking of the 'bought a car' story). His lack of compassion and understanding is always on display. His way is the only way. Thinking outside of the box is foreign. Frankly, every time he says something, I think of Trump. Selfish, self-centered, ego-maniacal, and finds someone else to shift the blame to. His primary target is the Council because it's more 'blue' than 'red'. The Council does what it's elected to do. It listens to the constituents and then brings it up as an item to be addressed. Whether the councilperson agrees or not, if there's enough outcry, he/she will bring it up and seek a solution. If it's 'blue', he will stonewall. The Budlong Pool is a perfect example.
There are more than enough empty buildings that could be retrofitted into a shelter in our cities and towns. Many are on or right off a main street that has a RIPTA line. In Warwick, Aldrich school has been empty for several years and is now looking derelict. It's on the busline, across from Walmart and near other stores. There another empty building in Providence, right off of Allens Ave. near the Cranston line. It's an area of small factories and offices. There's not much traffic, doesn't appear to be near housing or schools. Since both are on buslines, there is no need for many of the services incorporated. They can hop a bus and go into downtown Prov. It would make it easier for social workers and such as people would be more clustered and accessible.
Cranston was never designed for this. It was and is a suburb. It was an escape from the tenements of Providence as immigrants and WW2 vets moved in. There have been decades of poor planning. Reservoir Ave. is lined with houses that have been turned into businesses that come and go.
The Governor and Mayor are joined at the hip despite being of different parties. The Governor won't commit and the Mayor refuses to listen. The pallet shelters in Providence were to open in the spring (2024), then the late summer, then Dec. 1st, and now it's Dec. 31st. The Governor has the power to cut the red tape but doesn't. Echo Village is poorly designed. The shelters are too close together with little to no access for emergency vehicles.
I know - I'm old, I'm cranky (which is something new), and I ramble. I have pointed out empty buildings elsewhere. My intent is not to push off the problems elsewhere. The 2 places I mentioned I've driven by (I don't go out often). I am angry. I'm angry at myself. I've lived here all of my life but I didn't pay attention. I keep telling my now middle-aged kids (both live in Cranston) to not follow in my footsteps. Pay attention. If you see something, say something. Don't wait because it may be too late.
Thank you for your continued diligence covering this issue, Steve. And thanks to the ACLU for going on record with a comprehensive explanation of why this ordinance should be rejected by the Council. (Not that this has not all been patiently explained to the Mayor numerous times already).
It is obvious at this point that Mayor Hopkins is not the sort of person who likes to think very hard about complex policy issues, to seek and listen to the advice of experts in the field or to listen to the people who will actually be impacted by his policy decisions. He also doesn’t seem to be inclined towards looking for models that have been implemented with good results by comparable municipalities. Unfortunately, he tends more towards the dramatic gesture pulled off the rack from the outrage generation machine that is today’s national GOP. The idea is to convey the appearance of action without the hard work or results of actual problem solving. And it’s best to do it right around campaign season when a problem like homelessness, which has been an emergency for a long time, suddenly becomes a hair on fire situation.
When the mayor originally introduced his ordinance months ago, the council listened to the experts and instead of just rejecting the ordinance, tabled it for a few months and and formed a committee to study the issue and provide recommendations. I don’t know whatever happened with that committee, but the mayor waited a few days, and then issued a plainly illegal emergency order, and then proceeded to campaign on the issue and to misrepresent what the council actually did. And now comes a new ordinance, that still has most of the same problems. This is days after the Republican council members launched a dishonest and hyperbolic attack on a council proposal to provide a developer with tax stabilization agreements to create a miniscule number of new housing units (including a small percentage of “affordable” units on parcels that are currently undeveloped and providing little or no revenue to the city. The council president and the developer responded by pulling the proposal from the docket for tonight’s council meeting.
The GOP council minority is appalled by these tax deals for corporations when they’re building housing but apparently they (and the mayor) do TSAs all the time with corporate and commercial developers.
The mayor/GOP council’s housing policy is pretty simple. One: Do nothing to increase the supply of affordable housing in Cranston, which isn’t close to meeting state-mandated new housing and when (if memory serves) something like half of all Cranston residents are rent or mortgaged burdened. Two: Demonize homeless people and try to push the out into neighboring communities.
Cranston has real housing problems that demand real solutions not political theater.