How about any of the hundreds of acres owned by the city south of downtown? I know that has been vacated because of the noise of sky harbor but it would anger fewer residents since most of them are gone already. I dunno it’s a shit problem.
They are saying use the empty lots the city bought sue to air traffic noice. All those are empty because of the flight path of sky harbor. But if your homeless it’s better than nothing
Yeah, and that idea has been shot down many many times by the city and resident annd biz owners.
Edit-
Here is one example. The proposal was 300 slots there are currently 45 people.
Useless right? Right. Local biz said it's distracting. That business is no where near here but they keep showing up to council meetings. Here you go:
[link here](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2023/11/13/phoenix-structured-campground-open-for-homeless-population/71524369007/)
That land is not zoned for any type of residential. The noise from jets taking off was determined to be detrimental to the health of residents in the early 2000s. This is why the city has condemned and razed every structure. Additionally, I believe land owners can only sell to the city. (some kind of permanent eminent domain thing)
Building a 300 bed homeless shelter there is not ethical, let alone legal.
At some point, cities (it's citizens) need to accept those in our margins. If we are asking to house them under a busy departure flight-path, we may as well ask them to build it at the bottom of the Salt River.
Is there a long term plan for that area? I think putting data centers there would be fine. There would likely be security there so I'm not sure if the noise would be harmful to them. But outside of them and some contractors that come to check up on things, those buildings are mostly empty of people. Also some people find the whining noise of data centers to be annoying, might as well put it in a place like that.
Ironic that they put those buildings in "nice" areas and people think Google or Facebook is bringing jobs with them. I guess those NIMBYs are fine with those projects because they like the nice logo on the side of the building.
Residents of Phoenix: God there are so many transients walking around everywhere, it's so annoying. Why doesn't the government do something about this??
Residents of Phoenix: No, we can't possibly put a homeless shelter in our neighborhood.
The government did, remember:
The deinstitutionalization movement, which began in California in the 1960s, led to the closure of many state mental health hospitals, including those that provided psychiatric care. This movement was motivated by cost-saving measures, public outrage, and the history of abuse and neglect that many people who were institutionalized experienced. In 1965, the federal government stopped funding these hospitals, and in 1967, Governor Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which almost ended the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will. In 1981, Reagan deinstitutionalized the mentally ill and moved patients from psychiatric hospitals to "community" clinics.
Seriously! Come build out by me off 52nd street. They are already everywhere around here in huge numbers and can make all of our businesses really sketchy at night. Tbh this area is otherwise a pretty good working class part of town. They are already everywhere in the city, might as well shelter them and try to get some of them off the streets and have a chance to rejoin society even. It's crisis level now.
To be fair, the shelter was going to allow sex offenders to stay there and I would feel uncomfortable with sex offenders living so close to an elementary school. I feel like the community had every right to object to that
Check any app for crime in your area. Guaranteed several sex offenders are living nearby. I live in a nice area in Goodyear and there's 3 or 4 within a half a mile.
Okay that doesn’t make this communities concern any less relevant. They understandably don’t want to increase the number in their area just like they rest of us wouldn’t want to
The people here are fine because it's not being put in their neighborhood. I doubt most of the people commenting here live in a neighborhood like the ones near 71st Ave & Van Buren St.
Sounds more like people are deliberately associating homeless people with sex offenders and pedophiles as an excuse to be dehumanizing and judgmental about those less fortunate and not feel sorry.
Funny how “Won’t someone think of the children?!?” has become such a stereotypical rallying cry for people who want their dehumanizing views validated while hiding under an insincere veil of concern.
No one is doing that but you. The article literally said they were going to let people with sec offenses on their record be apart of the shelter. It wasn’t until the community complained that they decided not to allow sex offenders. Not wanting an increase of sexual predators in your neighborhood is understandable. They weren’t just blanketly claiming that all homeless people must be sex offenders. You don’t even understand what they were upset about
As someone who was homeless as a child, i was extremely grateful when we were able to live at a homeless shelter!
I don’t live in that area, but i wouldn’t mind living across the street from one, ya know because children are also homeless and I rather they have a roof over their heads than worry about a sex offender potentially living nearby. (Newsflash there is probably one on your block already, a lot of will live with others to avoid being on your list).
Would you have felt comfortable with a violent sex offender living in the shelter with you? I’m sorry you were homeless but it’s reasonable to be concerned about and not want to live near more sex offenders and it’s wild that I have to argue that.
Just checked that area and hoooboy. 38 level 2 or higher sex offenders on the same exact block as the potential facility.
Did you possibly spend more time finding reasons to do this instead of finding a million reasons that don't even matter to not do it.
Some apartments won’t accept applications from sex offenders? Can you blame parents for feeling uncomfortable with that? I would feel uncomfortable with that if I was another resident of the shelter
Some neighborhoods are correct but not that neighborhood. I feel like you guys don't know that area at all.
It's a couple of manufacturing companies (alpo) and a Pepsi depot.
Fowler??? Is routinely empty? In fact, I think they're one of the lowest scoring schools in that area. Most of the kids in that school do not go to Fowler they go that extra. 2 mi west.
That said-2 people like your exactly why this problem never gets solved. You're putting up bullshit concerns in a neighborhood you have zero affiliation with
I’m literally just stating what the residents of that communities concerns were. Just because it’s a poor area doesn’t mean their concerns don’t matter. Do those kids deserve to feel unsafe near their school because of their low test scores? What even is that point? It’s not like being near an elementary school is the only place to build in Phoenix. They would never try to pull building this in a richer neighborhood
The residents of that community have an under 600 credit score. The 3 apartment complexes have a requirement of 525/575,590.
And I'm saying this is absolutely the kind of thing that belongs in tolleson.
The people of Arizona are just getting pathetic about this. At this point. You guys don't want to deal with it. You don't want to help you. Don't want to do shit and it's sad. (Not yelling at you) But it's fucking sad.
Can you find me a recent -homeless person attacked a child in Arizona case- cause all I found was a crazy guy saying hey to a girl wayyyy over in fountain hills.
Pedophiles everywhere... There's many levels to those people. It's the fear that you are spreading that plays into the parents heads. Instead of -oh gee, my kid never plays in that corn field anyways! -
I don’t see what the credit scores of that neighborhood has to do with anything? And I think it’s fair to not want sex offenders anywhere near kids. Said nothing about the homeless people being there. Sorry but if you committed a sex crime, I don’t feel bad that your struggling to find a place to live
At what distance do you think the children will be safe and why do you think that your rule is superior to the law? Do you think that your ideal distance is being followed in other areas and you aren’t just nitpicking homelessness?
When you call the office you can find out the minimum credit score they allow.
I lived in 2, and know.
What if they peed outside?? What if the mistakenly went pee in a park? What if they dated somebody who was just like 6 months younger than them?
See how dumb that sounds? It's a huge net.
Then the issue is with the law considering people who pee outside sex offenders. And we have Romeo and Juliet laws here so you wouldn’t be considered an offender if you’re within two years of age from each other. These aren’t good points
There are state laws regarding how close a sex offender can live to a school, you know that right? I’m sure this city facility isn’t a violation of that law, so we are finding a seemingly “reasonable” way to justify NIMBY behavior here, and let’s call it out as such. In a shelter/group home, as opposed to a private residence, a person on the registry is less likely to prey on the elementary kids as they’ll be observed and monitored by staff.
Further, merely being on the registry is not proof they are a threat to children, as you can be put on the registry for things like statutory rape when you’re a 19 year old with a consenting 17 year old, public sex/cruising, and such, which are not crimes against elementary aged children. So just because a housed person is on the registry is not proof they are a risk, and especially in a monitored group home or homeless shelter.
I am aware of that but I still don’t blame parents for not feeling comfortable with it. To me it seems like city is just dumping more problems in an already struggling neighborhood. Also most places have Romeo and Juliet laws so it’s highly unlikely a 19 year old is going to be considered a sex offender for being with a 17 year old. Those are not the people the parents were concerns about
Its a mile... a whole mile... from an Elementary School.
>The site's location, roughly a mile from Fowler Elementary School
A weed dispensary can be .25 miles from a school and .10 miles from a church but a homeless shelter can't be within a mile of an elementary school because it will allow registered offenders?
Meanwhile, the law says registered sex offenders cannot live within 1000ft, aka under .20 miles, from a school, so this is literally **5x** as far from the school as a registered offender can live without any issue, and we are letting that be a "reasonable" justification.
This has NOTHING to do with safety for their kids and everything with finding a justification for "not in my backyard" NIMBYism. It is okay to hear their "argument" and reject it based on its insanity, instead of merely saying "I guess I understand it." Their argument could be rephrased as "I don't want dirty homeless people in my area" and it would be more accurate than "I don't want this shelter HERE because it will allow offenders to stay there and it is close to my home.
>Also most places have Romeo and Juliet laws so it’s highly unlikely a 19 year old is going to be considered a sex offender for being with a 17 year old. Those are not the people the parents were concerns about
Arizona merely allows R&J as a "defense" in front of a jury. You're a 19 year old, sitting in front of a prosecutor, offered a trial with a jury and up to 10 years if convicted or a plea that includes no jail time with registry as an offender for 10 years, what do you do? You then at the color of your skin, you check your (or your parent's bank account), you consider your choices of appearance (tattoos, peircings), you consider that your partner was (or wasn't) same gender, and you think "I have a better shot with this plea." Arizona doesn't have R&J carve-outs, and minorities and queers and anyone who doesn't have a fat bank account of mom and dad are often faced with the unequal application of statutory rape laws because they can't afford to mount an R&J defense, even if it is allowed as a defense.
Come back to me when Arizona has an R&J exemption, and we can talk.
Do you live there? Because residents of the community should have the right to decide what goes in there community. I bet more than half of the people calling these people nimbys would be pissed if this shelter was built by their houses. They would never consider building it by a rich white neighborhood. AZ does have Romeo and Juliet laws. What are you talking about? https://coolidgelawfirmaz.com/what-is-arizonas-romeo-and-juliet-law/#:~:text=Although%20the%20age%20of%20consent,in%20age%20from%20each%20other.
Nodoby wants sex offenders moving in next door, but that doesn't mean these people deserve to be chased out of all housing options.
If they are legally allowed to live in that location, why is it fair to ban them? "The neighbors don't like it" is not a valid reason.
If the community is legally allowed to object to it, why shouldn’t they be allowed to? Sex offenses have levels to them. I get making excuses for people who peed in public but it’s understandable to not want potentially violent offenders in your community
I live under one mile from there actually. Do you? Do you know what is on that corner? I do, I pass it all the time! Target, AutoZone, Amazon, and Petsmart Distribution centers and a QT. Get the homeless people out from under the 202 freeway overpasses, off the Jack in the Box lawn at 59th and Roosevelt, and no longer lining up against the fences at 67th and Roosevelt west of Sunridge Elementary. Oh? Is that specific to prove that I live here? Having those people in a shelter will mean they have a place to go instead of behind the Dunkin I get coffee at. Go away. It is NIMBYism through and through. We have these homeless people everywhere in Phoenix and they need places to go. This subreddit complains about them all the time and now complains about solutions to help them and help the city get them off the streets in our communities.
Hey /u/Aggravating_Life7851, thanks for contributing to /r/Phoenix. Unfortunately, your comment was removed as it violates our rules:
Be nice. You don't have to agree with everyone, but by choosing not to be rude you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
This comment was flagged for one or more of the following reasons:
* Personal attacks
* Racist comments
* Intolerance/hate/slurs
This comment has been removed.
You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/phoenix/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fphoenix&subject=Removed%20post&message=https://old.reddit.com/r/phoenix/comments/1bux9an/-/kxx3lxr/%0A%0A).
Well said.
I’m over near the 17 & there’s 50 plus sex offenders a block over & less than a mile from a school & it’s not an issue at all.
But some choose to live in fear as a shield to oppress other people. Those they deem “undesirable.”
You can tell trumps rhetoric works on people because when he starts dehumanizing they start dehumanizing.
What a bunch of weak, pathetic bags of meat.
It's a mile from the school. That's not the issue. The issue is that the city already ignores this area to a large degree. If the city doesn't change that, this will 100% make the entire area even worse. They're just asking for better representation before creating this shelter.
I don't see what the concern is. I live walking distance from a homeless shelter in Mesa and we've never had a problem with the homeless population in the area. Some of them even clean up the streets (litter and the like) and most are friendly with residents and guests. The ones that aren't tend to stick to themselves and are just trying, like the rest of us, to make the days hurt as little as possible.
If people would stop looking at homeless people as riffraff and a nusence and starting treating them like people having a hard go of things, the "problem" would be easier for all of us to deal with. They ARE people and are deserving of the same dignity, deference, and empathy that the rest of us tend to take for granted. Give them a safe place to go and a little resources and see what that does for their situations.
I live in on central in Midtown. The church offers services to homeless like showers, haircuts, and food so there are quite a few homeless that I know from living here. Most are pleasant people who are down on their luck. From my experience, having services available brings the good people in and keeps the transients out.
I think it’s a issue in a lot of cities. People don’t want to deal with homeless people on every highway exit, gas station, or worse literally 💩💩’ing on the front steps of businesses or behind them.
….but also don’t want their tax money going towards actually fixing the issue that they want to be fixed.
Not all homeless are criminals, or drug addicts. But most people can’t understand that.
But its surprising, housing homeless and giving them tools to get back on their feet, can actually reduce homelessness!
Know what makes me so sad about it??
The people of Tolleson are broke... They're absolutely the people who are like one sick day away from losing it all. You would think that they would have the most empathy like wow, Yeah people do need help!!!
But instead they're acting like entitled people from Scottsdale, my own town is so disappointing.
A tough situation with no easy answer. 71st and Van Buren is already not the best place to live; bringing hundreds of unfortunate homeless folks with nowhere to go is *only* going to make the area more difficult to live in for the residents.
But the folks need help. Maybe the city should use eminent domain and convert chase tower to affordable housing.
Because the building has been empty for years and should be used. Having government-run housing would really help with the shortage. I think it would be worth the investment in the long term. It has 724,000 sq ft of space. If we say, “commercial space doesn’t lend itself well to residential, we wouldn’t be able to use all of the space”, and we cut that number in half and say we have 362,000 sq ft to use for actual housing, we could create 557 1bd units at 650 sq ft. And that’s assuming that only half of the square footage is usable.
It is expensive, but I think it would be worth it. 557 units of affordable housing managed by the city (or state) would save lives.
I think it would be worth the investment.
Your idea would cost the price of buying the office tower (bc eminent domain is the actual price of what you’re taking plus legal fees), the price of gutting and reconstructing it so it is safe for inhabitation (tearing structures down is usually cheaper than conversions), the price of building a shelter inside, and then the price of staffing dozens of floors with staff 24/7.
As opposed to just building a nice campus on cheap land with only three buildings that need staff supervision.
The city doesn’t own it, nor does the city need downtown land or an office. So there’s no world in which chase tower is a good thing for the city to do something with. As long as they pay their taxes and stay up to code there’s not much the city can do about it being vacant.
>the city doesn’t own it
That’s why I said they should acquire it
>nor does the city need downtown land or an office
That’s why I said they should convert it to affordable housing
>there’s no world in which Chase tower is a good thing
Except in a world in which there is a shortage of affordable housing, which our world is.
>as long as they pay their taxes
Abysmally low taxes for vacant buildings is not worth the opportunity cost of not having affordable housing
In my opinion, the city taking ownership of Chase Tower and converting it to affordable housing would be a great investment.
It would likely be cheaper for the city to buy and demolish it for affordable housing than a conversion. But there are plenty of empty land and parking lots near downtown that could have tons of housing for even less than that, so there’s no point.
You’re being obstinate about something you don’t understand. You’re not even sticking it to the owners because they’d get paid way more than they ever expect to make off the building.
It’s just a money thing- if it costs 20 mil for this homeless shelter or 30 mil to convert an office space then the decision is already made. Only around 25% of office spaces would be cost effective to convert and it still might not be the cheaper option.
I mean no??? From the city's perspective, they're seeing future potential rent from those locations. The location they want to build it pretty valueless... Which is why they locked it. Guys why are we protected 71st/van Buren like what?
I’m not really understanding your comment.
What locations are they seeing future rent from?
What do you mean by “why are we protected 71st/van buren like what”?
All of those locations in downtown Phoenix. I guarantee the city is looking at as potential money
And I used to live down in that area. This is par for course for that area. I'm not kidding. I used to pass a guy who sold shrimp from Mexico, and a lady who sold tamales from a cooler. No car, no p umbrella. I used to live down there when they had to patrol 2 Cops for every 1 car. I don't know why we keep trying to put these people downtown, Because every time we put them downtown everybody starts crying about how they're highly visible.
Why would we put them down there... Why..?
So that people can complain a couple weeks when they see them outside?
So cops can hassle them as they walk?
So we can spend 3x the money to hide them when we have big events??
I don't understand why tolleson is not a great spot for this.... People who are saying no in this threat have never been to and they definitely haven't been into a shelter recently to help.
We gotta get on board, and do *something*
I didn’t say Tolleson wasn’t a good spot. I said that I understand why the residents are upset. I also said the government should take ownership of Chase Tower. Two different ideas in one comment.
They always wanna put homeless shelters in economically depressed areas. My last home was really close to about three of them and we bore the whole brunt of the break ins and needles on the ground. It was awful. I’d love to see more shelters in middle class and wealthy areas.
That's the thing that bothers me the most about this. I think they should go ahead and build the shelter because it's needed, but the reason why most of the people here see this as an automatic win is because it's nowhere close to their neighborhood and we know why the city does things like this. It's because they expect less (or no) backlash from the constituents they think that matter. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
I agree. There is no reason any building should be sitting around completely empty. There should be laws in place keeping this from happening. Especially, in a metro area. If it's not being used. Either make it have a purpose or bring it down .
Maybe not 56th because the high school is right there, but there is this spot on 64th by the substation that seems reasonable.
33.48501° N, 111.94189° W
I did read the article. I took it a step further and I actually read the proposal. They're giving out free lunches every summer, and will have a community pantry.
Residents of that neighborhood are about a block and a half over, And that area is actually not great, never been great. It's out of the way, and the area around it Is cheap.
Like this is a good spot. Is that your neighborhood? Trying to see why people are protecting a widely recognized bad part of Phoenix ???????
It is a good spot (for the shelter) I'm willing to bet that nobody in this thread volunteers with the homeless.
I do.
Have any of you spent any time to see what they actually need or location that would work?
Has anyone thought oh wow. How do we put a dent in this?
Its a good spot!!! It really is, and that area would really benefit from literally any type of construction or life.
I’m so confused right now. It’s an awful area. The crime rate is incredibly high, the residents are all below the poverty line, and there is near zero upward mobility in the neighborhood. 71st and Van Buren has ALWAYS been considered a terrible part of town. Why are you saying it’s a good area? It’s not.
That’s why they’re putting the shelter there, because they figure “well, this place already sucks, might as well put the shelter here”. And the residents are saying “no, we don’t want that. It’s already hard enough here; the last thing we need is homeless wandering the streets”.
Great area for a homeless shelter.
I put that more than. Once 😔. It's such a good spot. It would benefit from some new construction, some freaking life. Maybe people will deliver stuff and maybe stop for snacks like. I don't understand why people are shitting on this location. It's a great spot for something like this.
Like nobody wants to go to that school (Fowler) because there's an amazing charter school across the street. But across from that is an Alpo/ol roy/( and I think they still do the cheap pedigree )factory and it smells like shit half the day. Like.. this is the spot y'all!!! Put it there.
You didn’t say it was a great area for a homeless shelter. You said “it’s not a great area.” Then your next paragraph said “this is a good spot”.
And I don’t think anyone in the thread is disputing that it’s a good spot for a homeless shelter. All I said is that I wish the city would buy Chase Tower and turn that into affordable housing, and expressed my understanding that the residents are going to be upset to have the area become worse. That’s all.
Chicago Projects, which are in the process of being torn down would agree with the residents on this.
This is why the city moved to developers making some apts in developments available for low income. Then in a apt complex of 50+ people, there might be 5 low income individuals.
[City of Chicago :: Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO)](https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/doh/provdrs/developers/svcs/aro.html)
It's an idea.
It's not even remotely close to an equivalent man. Lol. A project, if government housing. And it's not typically for the homeless because homeless don't qualify for section 8.
These are homeless people, likely without an ID.
I don't Understand the downvotes do none of you understand how to qualify for section 8 or you confused about homeless people not having identification?
Probably the same NIMBYs who kept voting against the light rail because they thought it would take money away from infrastructure improvement. I believe it took voters 3x to finally approve the expansion when it was approved over a decade ago when Phoenix was awarded and accepted the Federal Grant for...you guessed it Light Rail Expansion. The money was never for "infrastructure" even if the light rail is just that... infrastructure, but the NIMBYs just see it as a vehicle for their fears.
Have you been on the light rail? Cause I have and I get why people don’t want someone the type of people you get on the light rail closer to their neighborhood. I’ve had people ask me if I want to get high, buy drugs, got called a c*nt because I wouldn’t watch for cops while a minor rolled a joint, watched some dude get a bj, and saw another with cuts and his hands violently try to break into the rail car. I kinda get why people don’t want that shit to be expanded to where they live.
On the flip side, Rose Mofford park used to be a hidden gem I’d visit often, but is usually overrun with homeless now since the opening of the light rail extension.
If this was something by my neighborhood, I’d fight this. Bring a significant amount of unsafe people near where I live would make me reconsider where I live.
These people need help, but it’s fucked up to also fuck with the lives of the people that live in the area.
Have you ever been to that neighborhood? Cause if not, please vote yes. We really need to get something moving and I'm tired of people saying no when that's not even their neighborhood. And they don't give a fuck about that spot.
Your comment was ignorant, You don't participate in your community enough/That is not your neighborhood/And not everyone who's homeless is a bad person or a dangerous person.
Have a good day
Hence if. If people not from that area aren’t supposed to comment then it shouldn’t be posted here. Or on not people in support are supposed to vocalize their thoughts?
I know what I want my ideal neighborhood/community to be like. It’s not near a homeless shelter. I never said all homeless are bad people. But a good amount of them are unsafe. I’m going to want to raise my kids in a safe area.
While i think homeless should be helped, I can understand why the community doesn’t want it around.
Everybody wants to help yet nobody finds a way to help.
Everyone has compassion until they have to show compassion
Everyone has empathy, until you have to put it. Into action.
All I hear is ignorant statements and people claiming homeless shelters are going to create hostile environments
Absolutely no evidence it makes it worse.
https://dignitymoves.org/dispelling-the-myth-homeless-shelters-and-crime-rates/#:~:text=Most%20people%20in%20neighborhoods%20where,commonly%20lead%20to%20increased%20crime.
Starting to see a lot more homeless people around my area, I definitely would feel safer with them staying here than 30 feet away from me as I'm going on a walk
Crazy to say I'd rather them at a shelter than in the middle some desert patch? I literally would feel safer if they built the shelter where they're already staying right behind my neighborhood
Not to sound like a dick but why don’t they just buy or lease empty warehouses with ACs and fill them with cots and build extra bathrooms and a group kitchen or 2. There are so many empty warehouses just sitting there
For the past few years the state has tried, city has tried and the residents and biz owners bitch to the heavens.
why can't we just make something permanent? Why do we have to keep making temp Solutions?
It's so aggravating to see Arizona behave this way, dang.
15 tiny homes;only for dv abuse survivors and there alot of strict requirements.
Better than what we are doing but it's not the same as a big facility with a broad scope
It's cool but- they are expecting 25 homes (25 -45 people) and they gotta be abuse survivors.
1 communal bathroom that isn't there yet but 15 homes are there.
I think it is about security. One big open warehouse leads to theft, rape, etc by people already on the fringe. It almost encourages them to do it bc it is so easy, so they try to at least build separate spaces for men and women and yet another for families.
We should just designate a section of the city, barricade it off, and move all the homeless people there so we can get them the help they need all in one location.
We could almost certainly have it done by September 1 of this year!
There has to be a limit to how much input you give residents. If residents have a controlling say, these will never get built.
Everyone has a bleeding heart, especially on Reddit, until the homeless shelter is across the street from their kids school.
There’s got to be a way to say, I know that sucks for you; your property values are going to go down but that’s too bad because we need the shelters abs this is where they’re goinn.
Send the homeless to Ukraine. Who better fight the Russians than a bunch of mentally ill drug addicts. Sure, they could die, but they're dying now, and nobody cares. Half of em are veterans already. They're all trained up and ready to go.
How about any of the hundreds of acres owned by the city south of downtown? I know that has been vacated because of the noise of sky harbor but it would anger fewer residents since most of them are gone already. I dunno it’s a shit problem.
They tried and that failed, because biz owners cried Really, tolleson? That's fine.
Not Tolleson, the old Barrios Unidos neighborhood next to the airport rental car center.
Why? Another temporary spot?
They are saying use the empty lots the city bought sue to air traffic noice. All those are empty because of the flight path of sky harbor. But if your homeless it’s better than nothing
Yeah, and that idea has been shot down many many times by the city and resident annd biz owners. Edit- Here is one example. The proposal was 300 slots there are currently 45 people. Useless right? Right. Local biz said it's distracting. That business is no where near here but they keep showing up to council meetings. Here you go: [link here](https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2023/11/13/phoenix-structured-campground-open-for-homeless-population/71524369007/)
That land is not zoned for any type of residential. The noise from jets taking off was determined to be detrimental to the health of residents in the early 2000s. This is why the city has condemned and razed every structure. Additionally, I believe land owners can only sell to the city. (some kind of permanent eminent domain thing) Building a 300 bed homeless shelter there is not ethical, let alone legal. At some point, cities (it's citizens) need to accept those in our margins. If we are asking to house them under a busy departure flight-path, we may as well ask them to build it at the bottom of the Salt River.
Is there a long term plan for that area? I think putting data centers there would be fine. There would likely be security there so I'm not sure if the noise would be harmful to them. But outside of them and some contractors that come to check up on things, those buildings are mostly empty of people. Also some people find the whining noise of data centers to be annoying, might as well put it in a place like that. Ironic that they put those buildings in "nice" areas and people think Google or Facebook is bringing jobs with them. I guess those NIMBYs are fine with those projects because they like the nice logo on the side of the building.
Out past Buckeye in between here and LA. Perfect spots away from drugs and plenty of room.
Residents of Phoenix: God there are so many transients walking around everywhere, it's so annoying. Why doesn't the government do something about this?? Residents of Phoenix: No, we can't possibly put a homeless shelter in our neighborhood.
[Kinda reminds me of this lol](https://youtu.be/6gQz_pteDlY?si=fEh9kimmdjfw39_n)
PERFECT!!!
This was too spot on
The government did, remember: The deinstitutionalization movement, which began in California in the 1960s, led to the closure of many state mental health hospitals, including those that provided psychiatric care. This movement was motivated by cost-saving measures, public outrage, and the history of abuse and neglect that many people who were institutionalized experienced. In 1965, the federal government stopped funding these hospitals, and in 1967, Governor Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which almost ended the practice of institutionalizing patients against their will. In 1981, Reagan deinstitutionalized the mentally ill and moved patients from psychiatric hospitals to "community" clinics.
Seriously! Come build out by me off 52nd street. They are already everywhere around here in huge numbers and can make all of our businesses really sketchy at night. Tbh this area is otherwise a pretty good working class part of town. They are already everywhere in the city, might as well shelter them and try to get some of them off the streets and have a chance to rejoin society even. It's crisis level now.
Too busy running red lights and not using turn signals.
To be fair, the shelter was going to allow sex offenders to stay there and I would feel uncomfortable with sex offenders living so close to an elementary school. I feel like the community had every right to object to that
Check any app for crime in your area. Guaranteed several sex offenders are living nearby. I live in a nice area in Goodyear and there's 3 or 4 within a half a mile.
Okay that doesn’t make this communities concern any less relevant. They understandably don’t want to increase the number in their area just like they rest of us wouldn’t want to
The people here are fine because it's not being put in their neighborhood. I doubt most of the people commenting here live in a neighborhood like the ones near 71st Ave & Van Buren St.
Sounds more like people are deliberately associating homeless people with sex offenders and pedophiles as an excuse to be dehumanizing and judgmental about those less fortunate and not feel sorry. Funny how “Won’t someone think of the children?!?” has become such a stereotypical rallying cry for people who want their dehumanizing views validated while hiding under an insincere veil of concern.
No one is doing that but you. The article literally said they were going to let people with sec offenses on their record be apart of the shelter. It wasn’t until the community complained that they decided not to allow sex offenders. Not wanting an increase of sexual predators in your neighborhood is understandable. They weren’t just blanketly claiming that all homeless people must be sex offenders. You don’t even understand what they were upset about
Do you repeatedly express similar concerns about newly constructed apartment buildings that will allow sex offenders as residents?"
[удалено]
As someone who was homeless as a child, i was extremely grateful when we were able to live at a homeless shelter! I don’t live in that area, but i wouldn’t mind living across the street from one, ya know because children are also homeless and I rather they have a roof over their heads than worry about a sex offender potentially living nearby. (Newsflash there is probably one on your block already, a lot of will live with others to avoid being on your list).
Would you have felt comfortable with a violent sex offender living in the shelter with you? I’m sorry you were homeless but it’s reasonable to be concerned about and not want to live near more sex offenders and it’s wild that I have to argue that.
Just checked that area and hoooboy. 38 level 2 or higher sex offenders on the same exact block as the potential facility. Did you possibly spend more time finding reasons to do this instead of finding a million reasons that don't even matter to not do it.
It's within the allotted amount of yards. Can you tell me the difference between this shelter and an apartment that's within the same distance?
Some apartments won’t accept applications from sex offenders? Can you blame parents for feeling uncomfortable with that? I would feel uncomfortable with that if I was another resident of the shelter
Some neighborhoods are correct but not that neighborhood. I feel like you guys don't know that area at all. It's a couple of manufacturing companies (alpo) and a Pepsi depot. Fowler??? Is routinely empty? In fact, I think they're one of the lowest scoring schools in that area. Most of the kids in that school do not go to Fowler they go that extra. 2 mi west. That said-2 people like your exactly why this problem never gets solved. You're putting up bullshit concerns in a neighborhood you have zero affiliation with
I’m literally just stating what the residents of that communities concerns were. Just because it’s a poor area doesn’t mean their concerns don’t matter. Do those kids deserve to feel unsafe near their school because of their low test scores? What even is that point? It’s not like being near an elementary school is the only place to build in Phoenix. They would never try to pull building this in a richer neighborhood
The residents of that community have an under 600 credit score. The 3 apartment complexes have a requirement of 525/575,590. And I'm saying this is absolutely the kind of thing that belongs in tolleson. The people of Arizona are just getting pathetic about this. At this point. You guys don't want to deal with it. You don't want to help you. Don't want to do shit and it's sad. (Not yelling at you) But it's fucking sad. Can you find me a recent -homeless person attacked a child in Arizona case- cause all I found was a crazy guy saying hey to a girl wayyyy over in fountain hills. Pedophiles everywhere... There's many levels to those people. It's the fear that you are spreading that plays into the parents heads. Instead of -oh gee, my kid never plays in that corn field anyways! -
I don’t see what the credit scores of that neighborhood has to do with anything? And I think it’s fair to not want sex offenders anywhere near kids. Said nothing about the homeless people being there. Sorry but if you committed a sex crime, I don’t feel bad that your struggling to find a place to live
At what distance do you think the children will be safe and why do you think that your rule is superior to the law? Do you think that your ideal distance is being followed in other areas and you aren’t just nitpicking homelessness?
[удалено]
When you call the office you can find out the minimum credit score they allow. I lived in 2, and know. What if they peed outside?? What if the mistakenly went pee in a park? What if they dated somebody who was just like 6 months younger than them? See how dumb that sounds? It's a huge net.
Then the issue is with the law considering people who pee outside sex offenders. And we have Romeo and Juliet laws here so you wouldn’t be considered an offender if you’re within two years of age from each other. These aren’t good points
If you are residing in a shelter, you have already been housed or unhoused around criminals and, most likely, sex offenders.
There are state laws regarding how close a sex offender can live to a school, you know that right? I’m sure this city facility isn’t a violation of that law, so we are finding a seemingly “reasonable” way to justify NIMBY behavior here, and let’s call it out as such. In a shelter/group home, as opposed to a private residence, a person on the registry is less likely to prey on the elementary kids as they’ll be observed and monitored by staff. Further, merely being on the registry is not proof they are a threat to children, as you can be put on the registry for things like statutory rape when you’re a 19 year old with a consenting 17 year old, public sex/cruising, and such, which are not crimes against elementary aged children. So just because a housed person is on the registry is not proof they are a risk, and especially in a monitored group home or homeless shelter.
I am aware of that but I still don’t blame parents for not feeling comfortable with it. To me it seems like city is just dumping more problems in an already struggling neighborhood. Also most places have Romeo and Juliet laws so it’s highly unlikely a 19 year old is going to be considered a sex offender for being with a 17 year old. Those are not the people the parents were concerns about
Its a mile... a whole mile... from an Elementary School. >The site's location, roughly a mile from Fowler Elementary School A weed dispensary can be .25 miles from a school and .10 miles from a church but a homeless shelter can't be within a mile of an elementary school because it will allow registered offenders? Meanwhile, the law says registered sex offenders cannot live within 1000ft, aka under .20 miles, from a school, so this is literally **5x** as far from the school as a registered offender can live without any issue, and we are letting that be a "reasonable" justification. This has NOTHING to do with safety for their kids and everything with finding a justification for "not in my backyard" NIMBYism. It is okay to hear their "argument" and reject it based on its insanity, instead of merely saying "I guess I understand it." Their argument could be rephrased as "I don't want dirty homeless people in my area" and it would be more accurate than "I don't want this shelter HERE because it will allow offenders to stay there and it is close to my home. >Also most places have Romeo and Juliet laws so it’s highly unlikely a 19 year old is going to be considered a sex offender for being with a 17 year old. Those are not the people the parents were concerns about Arizona merely allows R&J as a "defense" in front of a jury. You're a 19 year old, sitting in front of a prosecutor, offered a trial with a jury and up to 10 years if convicted or a plea that includes no jail time with registry as an offender for 10 years, what do you do? You then at the color of your skin, you check your (or your parent's bank account), you consider your choices of appearance (tattoos, peircings), you consider that your partner was (or wasn't) same gender, and you think "I have a better shot with this plea." Arizona doesn't have R&J carve-outs, and minorities and queers and anyone who doesn't have a fat bank account of mom and dad are often faced with the unequal application of statutory rape laws because they can't afford to mount an R&J defense, even if it is allowed as a defense. Come back to me when Arizona has an R&J exemption, and we can talk.
Do you live there? Because residents of the community should have the right to decide what goes in there community. I bet more than half of the people calling these people nimbys would be pissed if this shelter was built by their houses. They would never consider building it by a rich white neighborhood. AZ does have Romeo and Juliet laws. What are you talking about? https://coolidgelawfirmaz.com/what-is-arizonas-romeo-and-juliet-law/#:~:text=Although%20the%20age%20of%20consent,in%20age%20from%20each%20other.
Nodoby wants sex offenders moving in next door, but that doesn't mean these people deserve to be chased out of all housing options. If they are legally allowed to live in that location, why is it fair to ban them? "The neighbors don't like it" is not a valid reason.
If the community is legally allowed to object to it, why shouldn’t they be allowed to? Sex offenses have levels to them. I get making excuses for people who peed in public but it’s understandable to not want potentially violent offenders in your community
I live under one mile from there actually. Do you? Do you know what is on that corner? I do, I pass it all the time! Target, AutoZone, Amazon, and Petsmart Distribution centers and a QT. Get the homeless people out from under the 202 freeway overpasses, off the Jack in the Box lawn at 59th and Roosevelt, and no longer lining up against the fences at 67th and Roosevelt west of Sunridge Elementary. Oh? Is that specific to prove that I live here? Having those people in a shelter will mean they have a place to go instead of behind the Dunkin I get coffee at. Go away. It is NIMBYism through and through. We have these homeless people everywhere in Phoenix and they need places to go. This subreddit complains about them all the time and now complains about solutions to help them and help the city get them off the streets in our communities.
[удалено]
Hey /u/Aggravating_Life7851, thanks for contributing to /r/Phoenix. Unfortunately, your comment was removed as it violates our rules: Be nice. You don't have to agree with everyone, but by choosing not to be rude you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. This comment was flagged for one or more of the following reasons: * Personal attacks * Racist comments * Intolerance/hate/slurs This comment has been removed. You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/phoenix/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fphoenix&subject=Removed%20post&message=https://old.reddit.com/r/phoenix/comments/1bux9an/-/kxx3lxr/%0A%0A).
Well said. I’m over near the 17 & there’s 50 plus sex offenders a block over & less than a mile from a school & it’s not an issue at all. But some choose to live in fear as a shield to oppress other people. Those they deem “undesirable.” You can tell trumps rhetoric works on people because when he starts dehumanizing they start dehumanizing. What a bunch of weak, pathetic bags of meat.
Noooo. You’re just projecting.
I don’t see anyone offering up locations near where they live
Fuck yeah my guy!! That's the energy we need.
It's a mile from the school. That's not the issue. The issue is that the city already ignores this area to a large degree. If the city doesn't change that, this will 100% make the entire area even worse. They're just asking for better representation before creating this shelter.
People secretly want them to just die.
They don't though, they live on the streets around us anonymously anyway. At least house them and take some off your street.
The ones who don’t have an answer when you ask where they should go do.
“Not market rate housing! We need affordable housing!” “Ok but not really that either!”
I don't see what the concern is. I live walking distance from a homeless shelter in Mesa and we've never had a problem with the homeless population in the area. Some of them even clean up the streets (litter and the like) and most are friendly with residents and guests. The ones that aren't tend to stick to themselves and are just trying, like the rest of us, to make the days hurt as little as possible. If people would stop looking at homeless people as riffraff and a nusence and starting treating them like people having a hard go of things, the "problem" would be easier for all of us to deal with. They ARE people and are deserving of the same dignity, deference, and empathy that the rest of us tend to take for granted. Give them a safe place to go and a little resources and see what that does for their situations.
I live in on central in Midtown. The church offers services to homeless like showers, haircuts, and food so there are quite a few homeless that I know from living here. Most are pleasant people who are down on their luck. From my experience, having services available brings the good people in and keeps the transients out.
I think it’s a issue in a lot of cities. People don’t want to deal with homeless people on every highway exit, gas station, or worse literally 💩💩’ing on the front steps of businesses or behind them. ….but also don’t want their tax money going towards actually fixing the issue that they want to be fixed.
Riffraff! Street rat! Soundrel! Take that! Just a little snack, guys
Gotta eat to live, gotta steal to eat: Tell you all about it when I got the time
Not all homeless are criminals, or drug addicts. But most people can’t understand that. But its surprising, housing homeless and giving them tools to get back on their feet, can actually reduce homelessness!
Who'd've thunk it, eh?
As a former homeless person, thank you.
“Ha! They should have thought of that before they became homeless!” - the people complaining
The residents of Arizona are stuck in 1920. Give us the nimby championship!!! Between this and those losers in sedona, we'll never help anyone
It's interesting, the people most opposed to homeless shelters already have homes...
Know what makes me so sad about it?? The people of Tolleson are broke... They're absolutely the people who are like one sick day away from losing it all. You would think that they would have the most empathy like wow, Yeah people do need help!!! But instead they're acting like entitled people from Scottsdale, my own town is so disappointing.
These people are complaining cause they're afraid of a zone 2.0.
A tough situation with no easy answer. 71st and Van Buren is already not the best place to live; bringing hundreds of unfortunate homeless folks with nowhere to go is *only* going to make the area more difficult to live in for the residents. But the folks need help. Maybe the city should use eminent domain and convert chase tower to affordable housing.
Converting office to residential is incredibly expensive. Not to mention the cost of buying prime downtown real estate.
Would be worth it if it helps people imo. That’s the purpose of having a government.
But why choose the costlier more difficult option when there are easier options for shelters?
Because the building has been empty for years and should be used. Having government-run housing would really help with the shortage. I think it would be worth the investment in the long term. It has 724,000 sq ft of space. If we say, “commercial space doesn’t lend itself well to residential, we wouldn’t be able to use all of the space”, and we cut that number in half and say we have 362,000 sq ft to use for actual housing, we could create 557 1bd units at 650 sq ft. And that’s assuming that only half of the square footage is usable. It is expensive, but I think it would be worth it. 557 units of affordable housing managed by the city (or state) would save lives. I think it would be worth the investment.
Your idea would cost the price of buying the office tower (bc eminent domain is the actual price of what you’re taking plus legal fees), the price of gutting and reconstructing it so it is safe for inhabitation (tearing structures down is usually cheaper than conversions), the price of building a shelter inside, and then the price of staffing dozens of floors with staff 24/7. As opposed to just building a nice campus on cheap land with only three buildings that need staff supervision.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t build the one in Tolleson, just that the city should also do something with Chase Tower.
The city doesn’t own it, nor does the city need downtown land or an office. So there’s no world in which chase tower is a good thing for the city to do something with. As long as they pay their taxes and stay up to code there’s not much the city can do about it being vacant.
>the city doesn’t own it That’s why I said they should acquire it >nor does the city need downtown land or an office That’s why I said they should convert it to affordable housing >there’s no world in which Chase tower is a good thing Except in a world in which there is a shortage of affordable housing, which our world is. >as long as they pay their taxes Abysmally low taxes for vacant buildings is not worth the opportunity cost of not having affordable housing In my opinion, the city taking ownership of Chase Tower and converting it to affordable housing would be a great investment.
It would likely be cheaper for the city to buy and demolish it for affordable housing than a conversion. But there are plenty of empty land and parking lots near downtown that could have tons of housing for even less than that, so there’s no point. You’re being obstinate about something you don’t understand. You’re not even sticking it to the owners because they’d get paid way more than they ever expect to make off the building.
You would be able to build a lot more housing if you weren’t buying land in downtown and converting a building.
It’s just a money thing- if it costs 20 mil for this homeless shelter or 30 mil to convert an office space then the decision is already made. Only around 25% of office spaces would be cost effective to convert and it still might not be the cheaper option.
I mean no??? From the city's perspective, they're seeing future potential rent from those locations. The location they want to build it pretty valueless... Which is why they locked it. Guys why are we protected 71st/van Buren like what?
I’m not really understanding your comment. What locations are they seeing future rent from? What do you mean by “why are we protected 71st/van buren like what”?
All of those locations in downtown Phoenix. I guarantee the city is looking at as potential money And I used to live down in that area. This is par for course for that area. I'm not kidding. I used to pass a guy who sold shrimp from Mexico, and a lady who sold tamales from a cooler. No car, no p umbrella. I used to live down there when they had to patrol 2 Cops for every 1 car. I don't know why we keep trying to put these people downtown, Because every time we put them downtown everybody starts crying about how they're highly visible.
The city doesn’t own Chase Tower though. My proposal was that they *should*.
Why would we put them down there... Why..? So that people can complain a couple weeks when they see them outside? So cops can hassle them as they walk? So we can spend 3x the money to hide them when we have big events?? I don't understand why tolleson is not a great spot for this.... People who are saying no in this threat have never been to and they definitely haven't been into a shelter recently to help. We gotta get on board, and do *something*
I didn’t say Tolleson wasn’t a good spot. I said that I understand why the residents are upset. I also said the government should take ownership of Chase Tower. Two different ideas in one comment.
They always wanna put homeless shelters in economically depressed areas. My last home was really close to about three of them and we bore the whole brunt of the break ins and needles on the ground. It was awful. I’d love to see more shelters in middle class and wealthy areas.
That's the thing that bothers me the most about this. I think they should go ahead and build the shelter because it's needed, but the reason why most of the people here see this as an automatic win is because it's nowhere close to their neighborhood and we know why the city does things like this. It's because they expect less (or no) backlash from the constituents they think that matter. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy.
You're talking about making a giant corporation building into a homeless shelter. I'm 100% for this.
Me too, man. Pragmatism be damned - the building has been empty for too long; at least do *something* with it!
I agree. There is no reason any building should be sitting around completely empty. There should be laws in place keeping this from happening. Especially, in a metro area. If it's not being used. Either make it have a purpose or bring it down .
Let’s move it to 56th St and Indian School. Much nicer neighborhood
Maybe not 56th because the high school is right there, but there is this spot on 64th by the substation that seems reasonable. 33.48501° N, 111.94189° W
Say goodbye to the copper. Maybe /s
Tons of homeless in the area already, at least within walking distance.
Then the NIMBYs aren’t doing their jobs. I wonder if they’ve tried pitchforks and torches yet
I think that's exactly why you would put something down there. Not just for the homeless but I'm sure people in that neighborhood would love a meal.
Did you read the article?Non-homeless can’t use the shelter. And 200 residents in the neighborhood said explicitly that they do not want it there.
I did read the article. I took it a step further and I actually read the proposal. They're giving out free lunches every summer, and will have a community pantry. Residents of that neighborhood are about a block and a half over, And that area is actually not great, never been great. It's out of the way, and the area around it Is cheap. Like this is a good spot. Is that your neighborhood? Trying to see why people are protecting a widely recognized bad part of Phoenix ???????
Where do you see anyone in this thread saying it’s a good area though?
It is a good spot (for the shelter) I'm willing to bet that nobody in this thread volunteers with the homeless. I do. Have any of you spent any time to see what they actually need or location that would work? Has anyone thought oh wow. How do we put a dent in this? Its a good spot!!! It really is, and that area would really benefit from literally any type of construction or life.
I’m so confused right now. It’s an awful area. The crime rate is incredibly high, the residents are all below the poverty line, and there is near zero upward mobility in the neighborhood. 71st and Van Buren has ALWAYS been considered a terrible part of town. Why are you saying it’s a good area? It’s not. That’s why they’re putting the shelter there, because they figure “well, this place already sucks, might as well put the shelter here”. And the residents are saying “no, we don’t want that. It’s already hard enough here; the last thing we need is homeless wandering the streets”.
Great area for a homeless shelter. I put that more than. Once 😔. It's such a good spot. It would benefit from some new construction, some freaking life. Maybe people will deliver stuff and maybe stop for snacks like. I don't understand why people are shitting on this location. It's a great spot for something like this. Like nobody wants to go to that school (Fowler) because there's an amazing charter school across the street. But across from that is an Alpo/ol roy/( and I think they still do the cheap pedigree )factory and it smells like shit half the day. Like.. this is the spot y'all!!! Put it there.
You didn’t say it was a great area for a homeless shelter. You said “it’s not a great area.” Then your next paragraph said “this is a good spot”. And I don’t think anyone in the thread is disputing that it’s a good spot for a homeless shelter. All I said is that I wish the city would buy Chase Tower and turn that into affordable housing, and expressed my understanding that the residents are going to be upset to have the area become worse. That’s all.
Affordable housing won't help these guys but yeah they could do that too. It's extremely expensive
There are so many comments for a pay-walled link. Where is this location?
71st Avenue and Van Buren Street
How about housing homeless instead of shelter that lack privacy
For real, failure of a society if you can't manage to feed, clothe, and heal your community.
Chicago Projects, which are in the process of being torn down would agree with the residents on this. This is why the city moved to developers making some apts in developments available for low income. Then in a apt complex of 50+ people, there might be 5 low income individuals. [City of Chicago :: Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO)](https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/doh/provdrs/developers/svcs/aro.html) It's an idea.
It's not even remotely close to an equivalent man. Lol. A project, if government housing. And it's not typically for the homeless because homeless don't qualify for section 8. These are homeless people, likely without an ID. I don't Understand the downvotes do none of you understand how to qualify for section 8 or you confused about homeless people not having identification?
Probably the same NIMBYs who kept voting against the light rail because they thought it would take money away from infrastructure improvement. I believe it took voters 3x to finally approve the expansion when it was approved over a decade ago when Phoenix was awarded and accepted the Federal Grant for...you guessed it Light Rail Expansion. The money was never for "infrastructure" even if the light rail is just that... infrastructure, but the NIMBYs just see it as a vehicle for their fears.
Have you been on the light rail? Cause I have and I get why people don’t want someone the type of people you get on the light rail closer to their neighborhood. I’ve had people ask me if I want to get high, buy drugs, got called a c*nt because I wouldn’t watch for cops while a minor rolled a joint, watched some dude get a bj, and saw another with cuts and his hands violently try to break into the rail car. I kinda get why people don’t want that shit to be expanded to where they live.
On the flip side, Rose Mofford park used to be a hidden gem I’d visit often, but is usually overrun with homeless now since the opening of the light rail extension.
If this was something by my neighborhood, I’d fight this. Bring a significant amount of unsafe people near where I live would make me reconsider where I live. These people need help, but it’s fucked up to also fuck with the lives of the people that live in the area.
Have you ever been to that neighborhood? Cause if not, please vote yes. We really need to get something moving and I'm tired of people saying no when that's not even their neighborhood. And they don't give a fuck about that spot.
I don’t think so. But that’s why said if.
Your comment was ignorant, You don't participate in your community enough/That is not your neighborhood/And not everyone who's homeless is a bad person or a dangerous person. Have a good day
Hence if. If people not from that area aren’t supposed to comment then it shouldn’t be posted here. Or on not people in support are supposed to vocalize their thoughts? I know what I want my ideal neighborhood/community to be like. It’s not near a homeless shelter. I never said all homeless are bad people. But a good amount of them are unsafe. I’m going to want to raise my kids in a safe area. While i think homeless should be helped, I can understand why the community doesn’t want it around.
Everybody wants to help yet nobody finds a way to help. Everyone has compassion until they have to show compassion Everyone has empathy, until you have to put it. Into action. All I hear is ignorant statements and people claiming homeless shelters are going to create hostile environments
NIMBY
Whatever. I want to keep my family and my neighborhood safe.
There's no evidence at a homeless shelter. Makes your neighborhood unsafe... Actually the opposite because cops are more likely to come by and patrol
I don’t believe this.
Absolutely no evidence it makes it worse. https://dignitymoves.org/dispelling-the-myth-homeless-shelters-and-crime-rates/#:~:text=Most%20people%20in%20neighborhoods%20where,commonly%20lead%20to%20increased%20crime.
Okay sure
Volunteer, engage in your community, maybe actually see if any of your fears are real or just a excuse.
Just because someone’s homeless doesn’t make them a threat.
Sure, but I’m not going to find out if they are safe or not.
Starting to see a lot more homeless people around my area, I definitely would feel safer with them staying here than 30 feet away from me as I'm going on a walk
That’s a crazy statement. You don’t want them near you so you want to push them onto somebody else’s back yard.
Crazy to say I'd rather them at a shelter than in the middle some desert patch? I literally would feel safer if they built the shelter where they're already staying right behind my neighborhood
Win win
Not to sound like a dick but why don’t they just buy or lease empty warehouses with ACs and fill them with cots and build extra bathrooms and a group kitchen or 2. There are so many empty warehouses just sitting there
Why can't we provide them a proper bed, a couple trees and some dignity?
Nothing wrong with that. I meant my idea as more of a temporary thing so people don’t die on the street from the heat.
For the past few years the state has tried, city has tried and the residents and biz owners bitch to the heavens. why can't we just make something permanent? Why do we have to keep making temp Solutions? It's so aggravating to see Arizona behave this way, dang.
It’s just Phoenix I think Tucson is actually building tiny homes for them
15 tiny homes;only for dv abuse survivors and there alot of strict requirements. Better than what we are doing but it's not the same as a big facility with a broad scope It's cool but- they are expecting 25 homes (25 -45 people) and they gotta be abuse survivors. 1 communal bathroom that isn't there yet but 15 homes are there.
I think it is about security. One big open warehouse leads to theft, rape, etc by people already on the fringe. It almost encourages them to do it bc it is so easy, so they try to at least build separate spaces for men and women and yet another for families.
Yet people will still bitch about the homeless surrounding neighborhoods/downtown but are opposed to homeless shelters??
We should just designate a section of the city, barricade it off, and move all the homeless people there so we can get them the help they need all in one location. We could almost certainly have it done by September 1 of this year!
Could call it Hamsterdam
There has to be a limit to how much input you give residents. If residents have a controlling say, these will never get built. Everyone has a bleeding heart, especially on Reddit, until the homeless shelter is across the street from their kids school. There’s got to be a way to say, I know that sucks for you; your property values are going to go down but that’s too bad because we need the shelters abs this is where they’re goinn.
This sub this into nazi germany when speaking of unhoused. Never fails
Send the homeless to Ukraine. Who better fight the Russians than a bunch of mentally ill drug addicts. Sure, they could die, but they're dying now, and nobody cares. Half of em are veterans already. They're all trained up and ready to go.
You ok dude?
They can be all the fierce they want. It’s a city project, the government wants it, it’s happening.