"Will this project be another living monument of failed social policy to provide Bunks for Drunks..."

While I am put off by some of the more "descriptive" portions of the discussion, I shared this here because it provides powerful insight into the minds of residents who must deal with "controversial" housing issues in their neighborhoods. Until I was 40, I had not a clue what it meant to be a "property owner" and as such, never gave much thought to the rights and desires of those who owned homes in areas I frequented to do my "partying." I couldn't understand what the big fuss was all about and in fact, was damned pleased that someone had established a place for me to party. To be sure, I understood some of the biggies for property owners long before I purchased a home and could commiserate with the outrage of homeowners who find out they've bought homes built on toxic waste dumps or discover that a large chemical plant is about to be built just down the street from them, but dopers and shady types? Hell, I was a shady type and felt wholly insulted that these people were looking down their noses at me. How dare they judge me? After I got clean, I was able to purchase a home, thanks in large part to my lovely significant other, and suddenly the shoe, as they say, was on the other foot. I became acutely aware of the issues surrounding property values and for the first time in my life, experienced the NIMBY syndrome when a developer wanted to put a casino and bordello at the western edge of the subdivision I resided in. Now I take property owner's complaints and concerns much more seriously and while I don't always agree with them, I at least pay attention to what they're saying rather than dismissing them outright. My point here is that for many of us who've spent our lives in abject poverty on the street, we have no clue what it means to be a "property owner" and as such, we don't give a whole lot of thought to the issue beyond grumbling about how lousy we've been treated in some of these neighborhoods. Many of us don't understand how the value of a home or business can plummet when the neighborhood begins to lose its visual appeal, its safety and/or its security. While it seems like a matter of common sense to most folks, the fact is, if you've never been there, its hard to know all the angles. Furthermore, if one's typical surroundings are lacking beauty, safety and security, one often doesn't put much stock or thought into what it takes to turn urban blight into a safe, homey area (and this is not the same as gentrifying an area). Contrary to the beliefs of some advocates however, its a two way street out there; if those without homes demand - and deserve - respect, they must also provide that same respect back to those they are potentially impacting. If you take a crap on my front lawn, I'm gonna have some choice words for you. However, it is our collective societal responsibility to ensure that there are ample places for all people to access bathrooms, shelters, food, education, jobs, etc. If we fail them at the most basic levels, we property owners had better be prepared to suffer the ramifications of desperation, hopelessness, despair and poverty. Housing first: An effective fix ... or an invitation for trouble? Jim Savage. Telegram & Gazette. Worcester, Mass.: Apr 4, 2008. pg. A.9

Recent news reports concerned the Pleasant Street Neighborhood Network Center's meeting about Community Healthlink's "Spencer House" program for chronic homeless people at 62 Elm St. Most neighbors were uninformed of the meeting. That meeting excluded city officials, news media and some who did not RSVP.

Neighbors responded by organizing an open meeting. Many neighbors are upset, not that a homeless group will be placed in the neighborhood, but that it will be a home where drinking is permitted. The proposed home is about three blocks from downtown Main Street, one door from my home, and raises numerous questions.

We have been told that the decision has already been made and that we cannot do anything about it. Residents are not ready to live with a decision in which we were not invited to participate. Transferring the PIP shelter residents to several new locations will harm our neighborhood as it has downtown Worcester development and the Main South corridor. What we have seen in the immediate PIP shelter area gives us solid reasons to be concerned.

Community Healthlink prefers to meet with "only a handful of residents" at a time. Our meeting April 2 was open to all.

Residents have a right to protect their neighborhood from chronically homeless people, some of whom are criminals, panhandlers, vagrants, drug dealers, members of rowdy gangs, addicts, or drunks. We don't know if the potential residents are going to be the "unsympathetic homeless" who beg, drink, bum cigarettes, urinate and vomit in public. Will this project be another living monument of failed social policy to provide Bunks for Drunks that aids and abets someone's self-destruction?

Some have accused our neighbors of NIMBYism - a posture of "Not In My Back Yard" regarding the addition of chronically homeless men to our community. Community Healthlink, the sponsoring organization that seeks to locate in this neighborhood, however, needs to adopt an effective strategy to support the neighborhood rather than destroy it. The action in the previous meeting to exclude people was not the voice of this community. We still need these leaders in this effort.

Built in 1906, 62 Elm St. until recently served as a group home for those with mental problems. The neighborhood did not experience problems with these residents, whom we befriended. The home has a long-term history serving as a group home for those in need. Our neighbors are very sympathetic to helping the homeless.

Our neighborhood experienced many problems at 5&7 Ashland St. where Community Healthlink and other social agencies sponsored former drug addicts. Community Healthlink states that they were the victim of the other tenants. Those residents introduced crime and drug trafficking in our neighborhood that had made significant improvements before. Residents were concerned about shootings and "drive-up" street purchases of hard drugs. Some residents moved away. Only through protests, TV and newspaper coverage and the bankruptcy of the owner was action taken by the city. As a result, the property is now abandoned and deteriorating.

I especially support homeless organizations that have a "hand-up" mentality (for example, our Veterans Homeless Veterans Shelter) rather than just a "handout" mentality. I, like others in this community, have a heart for those in need, as the Bible mandates. I also realize that many people except for the grace of God could be homeless and in need of a facility to help get their lives in order. Community Healthlink's giving these people a permanent home where they will pay 30 percent of their rent is a step in the right direction.

The problem exists that these former large homes are too expensive to operate for their original purposes. Many are now apartment houses, group homes or businesses. The neighborhood deteriorated and declined with code and ordinances placing more burdens on the owners. Historic homes disappeared and Worcester has lost much of its history. Improper planning and use will continue to destroy our neighborhoods.

We may be somewhat fortunate that Community Healthlink has chosen to restore this Worcester historical home; however, it needs to be for a more worthy cause. When their chronic homeless graduate after being dry for a period, then we will be more receptive.

Jim Savage and his family have been residents of the Nob Hill neighborhood in the Lincoln Estates-Elm Park National Historic District since 1999.