What's new
By:
Filters

New SLC Homeless Shelters

Ron Mexico

Ron Mexico

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Looks like SLC announced where they are opening up 4 new homeless shelters in SLC neighborhoods.

https://www.sltrib.com/home/4654207-155/salt-lake-city-selects-four-sites

They are shutting down the large and at capacity road home shelter. Due to what seems like business pressure(gateway mall and renovation that were announced all around the road home). Moving the homeless shelter that holds 1,060 people in a mostly industrial business area that is well established and everyone around that area knows that the shelter was there and what the area was like and moving them to residential areas. The new shelters will hold 150 each. So we are reducing the number of beds and people that the shelters will help as well. The only good thing is that one of them is going to be a Women's only shelter.

The part that makes me very upset is that the city and mayor made the decision behind closed doors with no input. I live about 1-2 blocks away from one of these new sites. It will wreck my house value. I chose to buy a house that was not near the homeless shelters for many reasons and 1 year later they move one right next to me to help make a profit but claim it is because they are trying to help homeless people. This in no way will be better for homeless people but it will be worse for the city and a lot of peoples home value. This will make business property and city property around the old shelter worth a lot more though. I am going to put effort into stopping this. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 
You could move. That would show them.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Looks like SLC announced where they are opening up 4 new homeless shelters in SLC neighborhoods.

https://www.sltrib.com/home/4654207-155/salt-lake-city-selects-four-sites

They are shutting down the large and at capacity road home shelter. Due to what seems like business pressure(gateway mall and renovation that were announced all around the road home). Moving the homeless shelter that holds 1,060 people in a mostly industrial business area that is well established and everyone around that area knows that the shelter was there and what the area was like and moving them to residential areas. The new shelters will hold 150 each. So we are reducing the number of beds and people that the shelters will help as well. The only good thing is that one of them is going to be a Women's only shelter.

The part that makes me very upset is that the city and mayor made the decision behind closed doors with no input. I live about 1-2 blocks away from one of these new sites. It will wreck my house value. I chose to buy a house that was not near the homeless shelters for many reasons and 1 year later they move one right next to me to help make a profit but claim it is because they are trying to help homeless people. This in no way will be better for homeless people but it will be worse for the city and a lot of peoples home value. This will make business property and city property around the old shelter worth a lot more though. I am going to put effort into stopping this. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

While I like the idea of doing more to help the people get out of their difficult situations, it does not appear this was handled in a good way at all.

First of all the decrease in beds is concerning when they are at near full capacity already. They are proposing a drop in beds of approximately 460 beds, how does that help?
Also, to drop this as a surprise and call it a done deal on people is not a good way to handle this. Not only to home owners, but also business owners in the areas of the new homes.

I'm not a fan of what just went down. I don't see how they are truly helping people, and it just seems sneaky.

To prevent neighborhoods being pitted against each other? Flimsy excuse to do this in this way.

I'll have to look more into it to make sure I'm not missing something.
 
LogGrad98 said:
You could move. That would show them.
Click to expand...
If there is nothing I can do that is a possibility. My house value will drop, so before it opens I might consider selling my house before it hurts its value. Although if others have the same idea too many houses for sale will drive form the price as well.
 
Ron Mexico said:
Looks like SLC announced where they are opening up 4 new homeless shelters in SLC neighborhoods.

https://www.sltrib.com/home/4654207-155/salt-lake-city-selects-four-sites

They are shutting down the large and at capacity road home shelter. Due to what seems like business pressure(gateway mall and renovation that were announced all around the road home). Moving the homeless shelter that holds 1,060 people in a mostly industrial business area that is well established and everyone around that area knows that the shelter was there and what the area was like and moving them to residential areas. The new shelters will hold 150 each. So we are reducing the number of beds and people that the shelters will help as well. The only good thing is that one of them is going to be a Women's only shelter.

The part that makes me very upset is that the city and mayor made the decision behind closed doors with no input. I live about 1-2 blocks away from one of these new sites. It will wreck my house value. I chose to buy a house that was not near the homeless shelters for many reasons and 1 year later they move one right next to me to help make a profit but claim it is because they are trying to help homeless people. This in no way will be better for homeless people but it will be worse for the city and a lot of peoples home value. This will make business property and city property around the old shelter worth a lot more though. I am going to put effort into stopping this. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of a liberal only caring about his own money TBH. Sorry you are to good to live next to a homeless shelter.
 
Boris said:
Perfect example of a liberal only caring about his own money TBH. Sorry you are to good to live next to a homeless shelter.
Click to expand...
Triggered
 
Bad for everyone that will deal with it day to day. But they don't care.
 
Boris said:
Perfect example of a liberal only caring about his own money TBH. Sorry you are to good to live next to a homeless shelter.
Click to expand...

Not really the case at all. When most people buy a home they buy it as an investment. I don't know many people that make an investment without an expectation of return on that investment. I bought in an area that I knew was going to grow and increase the value of my home. Isn't that how free-market capitalism works?
 
RJF said:
Not really the case at all. When most people buy a home they buy it as an investment. I don't know many people that make an investment without an expectation of return on that investment. I bought in an area that I knew was going to grow and increase the value of my home. Isn't that how free-market capitalism works?
Click to expand...

Shallow. These people deserve a good place to live to. I would welcome my new friends an donate for them an volunteer at the shelter. Maybe gregbroncster should form a community coalition that helps these poor people an is designed to be a world class example of getting people out of extreme poverty?
 
Boris said:
Shallow. These people deserve a good place to live to. I would welcome my new friends an donate for them an volunteer at the shelter. Maybe gregbroncster should form a community coalition that helps these poor people an is designed to be a world class example of getting people out of extreme poverty?
Click to expand...

Then you should be against this as well.
 
The homeless problem won't be solved by more housing programs or giving them money. It won't be solved until we deal with the mental health issues and the drug problem. The way we attempt to deal with those issues is not working. We also won't fix the illegal drug problems associated with heroine until we address the prescription pain pill problem first.

To address Boris which I avoid, I usually only respond to his main account not these side ones but I don't consider myself liberal especially economically. I do however want to help the homeless but this is not an attempt to help the homeless this is SLC pretending they are doing that but they are hurting the homeless to make a penny at the cost of financially hiring citizens. This is a deal they made with the new owners of gateway and other developers. This will not help homeless people. Spreading out the shelters, reducing the number of beds, moving them away from resources such as the methadone clinic and putting them in residential areas does not help homeless.



Sent from my Nexus 5X using JazzFanz mobile app
 
This was announced well before the new owners of thee gateway purchased it. It's true imo that this is largely just the extremely wealthy transferring property value from other SLC residents to themselves. The Pioneer Park Coalition is who got this going. The old owners of the gateway were involved as was the Romney family(Mitt's son IIRC). That being said something really did have to change. Homeless children in particular must be given a better safer place to go.

The larger issue imo is a metro of over 2 million dumping its homeless population on a city of 200k. It's gotten out of hand because SLC is a 10th of the population but expected to deal with 90% of the problem. SLC shouldn't be solving this alone. Cities like Sandy and WVC need to step up to the plate to provide services to some segment of this population. Props to Midvale BTW.

I think the city is trying to model these facilities after the YWCA on 3rd south. A facility twice the size(300 beds iirc) of the proposed shelters(150). If they can do that then it actually shouldn't be a problem. It should be nothing like Rio Grande so long as the council's feet are held to the fire to not expand them. The RoadHome has a capacity of 1100 and there is other small shelters and a food kitchen nearby. By dividing the population and scattering them it really should be a better situation for the homeless and residents. My guess is that the Dancing Cranes facility(super pissed that we're going to lose Dancing Cranes)will be a womans shelter, the 7th south DI a family shelter, with both the west gateway and Costco shelters being for men. That's just a guess though.

It is concerning that we are replacing an 1100 bed facility with 4 that total 600 beds. There are already homeless camping in dumpsters and alleyways. I'm somewhat hopeful that the other shoe(SLCounty/State)is about to drop. I have a feeling that there is a plan to absorb that population outside of SLC. With SLC getting the prison, being home to halfway houses, these 4 shelters, other shelters such as the YWCA I want to think that the city has drawn a line.

Hopefully I'm right and this gets worked out in a positive way.

BTW, I must live decently close to you.
 
♪alt13 said:
This was announced well before the new owners of thee gateway purchased it. It's true imo that this is largely just the extremely wealthy transferring property value from other SLC residents to themselves. The Pioneer Park Coalition is who got this going. The old owners of the gateway were involved as was the Romney family(Mitt's son IIRC). That being said something really did have to change. Homeless children in particular must be given a better safer place to go.

The larger issue imo is a metro of over 2 million dumping its homeless population on a city of 200k. It's gotten out of hand because SLC is a 10th of the population but expected to deal with 90% of the problem. SLC shouldn't be solving this alone. Cities like Sandy and WVC need to step up to the plate to provide services to some segment of this population. Props to Midvale BTW.

I think the city is trying to model these facilities after the YWCA on 3rd south. A facility twice the size(300 beds iirc) of the proposed shelters(150). If they can do that then it actually shouldn't be a problem. It should be nothing like Rio Grande so long as the council's feet are held to the fire to not expand them. The RoadHome has a capacity of 1100 and there is other small shelters and a food kitchen nearby. By dividing the population and scattering them it really should be a better situation for the homeless and residents. My guess is that the Dancing Cranes facility(super pissed that we're going to lose Dancing Cranes)will be a womans shelter, the 7th south DI a family shelter, with both the west gateway and Costco shelters being for men. That's just a guess though.

It is concerning that we are replacing an 1100 bed facility with 4 that total 600 beds. There are already homeless camping in dumpsters and alleyways. I'm somewhat hopeful that the other shoe(SLCounty/State)is about to drop. I have a feeling that there is a plan to absorb that population outside of SLC. With SLC getting the prison, being home to halfway houses, these 4 shelters, other shelters such as the YWCA I want to think that the city has drawn a line.

Hopefully I'm right and this gets worked out in a positive way.

BTW, I must live decently close to you.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of this. I dont like what they did but I like even less how they went about it. If this is the decision the city had come to after listening to the public and having a discussion about it with its citizens it would be much easier to swallow.

The new gateway owners were not apart of the initial discussions but it is being reported that they have told the city they would spend millions renovating the area around and in Gateway but only if the homeless shelter was moved away from them. Initially they were going to rebuild a facility near there and put a second one somewhere else in similar fashion to what they did but they chose a different area based on this money offer. They also said the impact of only 2 facilities would be too hard on the area. So they understand that it will negatively impact the locations.

I want to like this new Mayor but this is the third thing I have heard about that I really dislike. The first being that she fired all the city employees and made them reapply for their jobs without over Christmas time. I had multiple friends stressed about their jobs they had held for a very long time and were doing a great at. I understand making people reapply and assessing your employees but making them all send you a resignation and then evaluating them is pretty dumb. No reason to put unnecessary stress on people.
 
Ron Mexico said:
I agree with a lot of this. I dont like what they did but I like even less how they went about it. If this is the decision the city had come to after listening to the public and having a discussion about it with its citizens it would be much easier to swallow.

The new gateway owners were not apart of the initial discussions but it is being reported that they have told the city they would spend millions renovating the area around and in Gateway but only if the homeless shelter was moved away from them. Initially they were going to rebuild a facility near there and put a second one somewhere else in similar fashion to what they did but they chose a different area based on this money offer. They also said the impact of only 2 facilities would be too hard on the area. So they understand that it will negatively impact the locations.

I want to like this new Mayor but this is the third thing I have heard about that I really dislike. The first being that she fired all the city employees and made them reapply for their jobs without over Christmas time. I had multiple friends stressed about their jobs they had held for a very long time and were doing a great at. I understand making people reapply and assessing your employees but making them all send you a resignation and then evaluating them is pretty dumb. No reason to put unnecessary stress on people.
Click to expand...

They did. This has been 2 years in the making. There was a bunch of public sessions and they accepted online comments through open city hall. https://www.slcgov.com/opencityhall It was residents that wanted a "scattered sites" model. Biskuski tried to get 2 larger facilities but the city council had felt that they promised the city smaller ones so they blocked that. The only part of the process that they didn't involve the public was site selection for obvious reasons.

The key really is going to be holding their feet to the fire to keep increases in the capacity of the shelters from going through. Part of that is making sure these facilities aren't designed to absorb more capacity in the first place. They did seem to be a little large for 150 people so I am a little worried. Also I vote that if we increase the number of beds in the city that they are put in Federal Heights. :)
 
Cunning Linguist said:
No rickshaws in Utahr?
Click to expand...

Salt_City_Cycle-8242.jpg
 
Stoked said:
Then you should be against this as well.
Click to expand...

No I should be for it cause I actually care. You think isolating 1000 homeless in to one ****hole location is good? It is same thing as prison all they do is make criminals worse people. This program is designed to put those in need in to better living conditions an less access to relapse on drugs an booze. It is like a rehab idea for those most in need the farther you are away from the drug pits the harder it is to get stuff an easier to motivate yourself to not to.
 
I like when people judge with zero knowledge of a decision process

"Of course we want to see a change in (Rio Grande), but it's not just for that neighborhood; it's for the whole city," Rojas said, adding that the "scattered site model" is supposed to create a safer homeless service climate.
Click to expand...

https://www.deseretnews.com/article...lose-when-homeless-resource-centers-open.html

"This neighborhood has been struggling for a long time," he said. "They've been carrying the responsibility of caring for those experiencing homelessness for well over three decades now. It's time for relief, and it can't come soon enough."
Click to expand...

Rojas said new city and county homeless services programs — including affordable housing initiatives, rapid rehousing and Pay for Success programs — will be able to "absorb" and divert those who don't occupy bed space in the four new resource centers.
Click to expand...

One short article interviewing people who are actually involved professionally dispels all these myths [MENTION=1988]Stoked[/MENTION] an others are pushing. But yah who cares about a safer community overall cause you NIMBY elitists think some other neighborhood this thing was thrust upon should continue to suffer the consequences even after 3 long decades. You think those people bought homes there thinking you all would support taxpayer funding for this level of The Road Home? So it is fair that you all voted this on to them but now when the coin flips you cry wolf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top