“Unelected” was Tom DeLay’s favorite word, too. He liked to use it to preface “liberal activist judges,“ his favorite phrase.
 
Then he got “unelected.“

Hmm.  That’s an intersting point.  You sure you commented on the right article?

(sigh)

I want to make a few points about the homeless situation in this community. 

There’s a system of shelters and social service agencies already in place that works with people who are homeless. 

This system is far from perfect – it could use, among other things, more money and support from the government… every level of government. 
 
However, it is there, and people who are homeless can use it. 

There’s been a lot of talk since the Safe Haven story broke about how this existing system isn’t adequate, that it doesn’t meet the needs of every resident.
 
It’s been my observation, from having spent hours at a local shelter over the past year both as a volunteer and as a paid employee, that when a shelter doesn’t “work” for a resident it usually means that the resident was KICKED OUT. 

Residents are kicked out for not following the shelter rules.  The rules cover things like STEALING, BEHAVING IN VIOLENT AND ABUSIVE WAYS TOWARDS OTHERS, and REFUSING TO LOOK FOR WORK.

So, yes, it’s safe to say that the shelter system in this community doesn’t work for people who steal, behave in ways that are threatening to others (frequently while drunk or high), and refuse to look for work. 

When residents get kicked out, it’s often because they’ve been caught stealing (both from each other and from the facility) or for threatening other people (both other residents and staff). 

When people are kicked out permanently, they’ve usually had multiple chances to reform.  Contrary to what evicted residents will tell you, shelter staff aren’t on power trips, they don’t kick out individual residents because they don’t like the resident personally, and the decision to evict the resident usually earns the wholehearted support of those residents who are behaving respectfully, staying sober, working (many shelter residents are already employed and saving for their re-entry into mainstream society) or trying to find work, and generally using the shelter for what it’s there for – helping people to help themselves. 

From what I’ve seen, shelter employees in this community don’t treat residents disrespectfully.

I don’t know the individuals in Safe Haven personally or know their stories.  I’m not judging them as individuals because, yes, there are exceptions to the situations I’ve described above as to why individuals don’t make successful exits from shelters.
I understand that there are many very difficult barriers for homeless people - no matter how determined - to overcome, such as mental illness, felony convictions that make it very difficult to find work, and substance abuse issues. 

Personally, I feel that the best way for concerned citizens to help the homeless in this community is to donate time and/or money to one of our existing agencies or shelters.  These groups - working with very little money and in stressful, dangerous circumstances – have been making a daily difference in improving the lives of individuals who are homeless in this community for years.

Mark,
Thank you so much for taking the time to post your informed opinion. Because of your professional experience, you know much more than most of us.
 
I agree.
 
As I said in response to Heather’s SPlog last week, the social services nexis (provider to needful) is not being met as well since the Urban League—the local HUD “affiliate”—went under. But that doesn’t mean the services are gone. It’s just that there’s not so much direction.

Mark, 
I most definitely appreciate your point, and I’d like to echo your assertion about the staff and volunteers who work at places like the Times Center.  Under no circumstances should these people be villified.  It is their job to keep their clients safe, and from all reputable accounts I’ve heard, they do this with fairness and compassion. 
I also agree that donating money and time to these organizations is a fantastic way for individual citizens to address the issue of homelessness in our community.  For what its worth, I’ve been involved in several joint fundraising efforts with the Times Center.  But to me the questions that we are faced with have very little to do with whether or not the people who run our community’s homeless shelters are doing a good job or not.  From all I’ve seen, it seems that they are.   
To me the question has more to do with whether or not we as a community are open to alternative lifestyles.  There are some people who, despite not having a permenent residence, prefer not to live in a shelter.  Why shouldn’t these people be allowed to empower themselves, especially when nobody who is directly effected by their way of life is complaining? 
 
I for one think that it’s our responsiblity as a community to speak up for any group that is being disenfranchised in the way that the people of Safe Haven are.
 

<div>Caleb, I’m so glad you framed it that way.</div>
<div></div>
<div>I agree with you about alternative lifestyles. I’m always advocating that alternative lifestyles be left alone. That is, as you say, until they begin to interfere with other people.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Southern Baptists have no right to impose their beliefs about homosexuality on non-believing northern gay couples. Safe Haven residents have no right to impose their beliefs about free living on neighbors of the plots they occupy.</div>
<div></div>
<div>In both cases, the victims are protected by laws.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The argument that “nobody is complaining” falls flat. But you’re right that the people complaining are not publicly proclaiming their names and addresses.</div>

Caleb, I’m so glad you framed it that way.
 
I agree with you about alternative lifestyles. I’m always advocating that alternative lifestyles be left alone. That is, as you say, until they begin to interfere with other people.
 
Southern Baptists have no right to impose their beliefs about homosexuality on non-believing northern gay couples. Safe Haven residents have no right to impose their beliefs about free living on neighbors of the plots they occupy.
 
In both cases, the victims are protected by laws.
 
The argument that “nobody is complaining” falls flat. But you’re right that the people complaining are not publicly proclaiming their names and addresses.

Point of clarification: I didn’t say “nobdody is complaining,“ I said “ nobody who is directly affected by their (Safe Haven’s) way of life is complaining.“  
Its also worth pointing out that, as far as I know, Safe Haven hasn’t tried to impose their beliefs on their neighbors. It seems that they’ve done quite the opposite by moving several times.  Right now they are staying at a church that has been threatened by the city despite their being no current complaints against them. 
I’m sorry, I just don’t see the comparison between Jerry Falwell and this group of folks.

Caleb,
What you’re failing to read between the lines is what a lot of people fail to read between the lines in these cases.
 
People who are directly affected are complaining.
 
They do not want to be identified, because they know they will be vilified (for seeking their lawful right to peace, quiet, and not having a band of gypsies barbecuing squirrels in their backyard at midnight).

Caleb,

I understand that you’re not villifying the local shelters and social service agencies.  My frustration came from reading statements in other media coverage of this story by former shelter residents that they weren’t treated respectfully during their stays - I don’t believe this because I’ve never seen it happen in my time as a shelter worker and volunteer. 

It probably wasn’t appropriate for me to make this point in response to your article, which makes no such allegations against local shelters, and I apologize. 

You state, “There are some people who, despite not having a permenent residence, prefer not to live in a shelter.  Why shouldn’t these people be allowed to empower themselves, especially when nobody who is directly effected by their way of life is complaining?“

I agree with you 100%.  The problem with Safe Haven is that people who are effected by their way of life are complaining.  This whole issue started when neighbors of the original tent community began complaining of disruptive conduct.

Without having actually been on Randolph Street myself at the time that this disruptive conduct allegedly happened, I believe that it did.  This belief comes from my personal experience that engaging in drunk, disorderly and disruptive conduct is SOMETHING THAT MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE FREQUENTLY DO.  In many cases, it’s part of the reason why they’re homeless.

This is probably stereotyping - and of course not every person who is homeless acts this way - but that’s been my experience as someone who has broken up the fights, had to deal with the people who are obnoxiosly drunk or high, and tried to figure out who stole what from who. 

I’m guessing that the neighbors didn’t want to live next to the tent community for the same reasons that they wouldn’t want to live next to a dive bar or a freshman college dorm. 

Of course I could be wrong and the neighbors are uncompassionate jerks who enjoy perpetuating the misery of others, but I doubt that they are. 

Again, I don’t know anyone in Safe Haven or their stories. I am not condeming them personally.  However, if their lifestyle is indeed a choice, it needs to be a choice that doesn’t disrupt other people - which, I believe, (while admittedly not knowing all the facts)has already happened. 

For me, the bottom line to this whole story is that if you bother your neighbers with disruptive conduct, I’m not going to advocate for you or support you.

What he said.

In response to Mark—
Yes, although they are far from perfect, the existing transitional centers are doing a good job. And yes, they do need more donations and support. I don’t think anyone is refuting that. 
It seems that you are indirectly arguing that people should support existing social services INSTEAD OF alternative groups like Safe Haven, because the homeless people who live outside existing shelters are dangerous, prone to theft, and so on. I like to think I can support both local transitional centers and alternative groups like Safe Haven. I think they both serve important purposes in our community.
Although I’m sure many people get kicked out of the TIMES Center for the reasons you’ve stated—behaving dangerously, stealing, and so on—I think the following statements are unfair, espeically in direct response to an article about Safe Haven, “...when a shelter doesn’t ‘work’ for a resident it usually means that the resident was KICKED OUT…So, yes, it’s safe to say that the shelter system in this community doesn’t work for people who steal, behave in ways that are threatening to others (frequently while drunk or high), and refuse to look for work.“
In light of spending time with Safe Haven, many of the residents are people like you and me who recently lost their jobs, got evicted, and are now displaced. There are a number of reasons why they don’t stay at the shelters.
Some of them are couples who, as you know, cannot stay at the TIMES Center or any other transitional center in town. Others choose not to live in shelters because they want to avoid transitional programs and have more control over their own lives. From what I can tell, this particular group is not stealing, threatening others, or refusing to look for work. Some of them maintain regular (though not “good”) jobs, and others are looking for work.
I just think we need to be aware that not everyone living outside the transitional centers has been kicked out. Some of them, for one reason or another, never entered the system in the first place.

I think trying to compare Safe Haven’s desire for a designated long term tent community in town to a short term campout in one’s own backyard or as a publicity stunt to raise funds and awareness is extremely poor reasoning.  On one hand you have people who will be living in a tent as their primary residence for an indefinite period of time compared to a short term stint by people with permanent housing.  
 
The thing that still bugs me the most about Safe Haven’s complaints is their lack of respect for the laws that the local community has established.  The city of Champaign and the majority of its residents have declared tents to be an unacceptable form of housing within their community.  The people have spoken, the laws are on the books, they’ve been on the books since before Safe Haven was conceived.  Despite this, Safe Haven feels that they’re somehow above the law.  
 
What will it take for Safe Haven to realize their concept for alternative living is not what the community wants?  Safe Haven can claim discrimination and chastise us for not being more upset, but the groundswell of support you’re seeking to make this an issue doesn’t appear to be coming.  This is probably due to the fact that Safe Haven is simply not welcome as it is currently conceived.  Despite all the signs that the people of Champaign reject it, Safe Haven seems intent on imposing its vision on an unwilling community.
 
 

This (above) was in response to Mark’s first comment. He responded a second time while I was typing. Can’t keep up with electronic media…

Rob: I really don’t like the imagery that you chose to use in your comment.  I find it to be unneeded.   

Mark: Thanks for your clarification.  Let me say that I am all for individual accountability on all levels of our society.  So in my estimation, if the people of Safe Haven are making a ruckus, then there is a problem that must be addressed.  What bothers me about all of this is that the Safe Haveners have taken many steps to appease the C-U community.  Bottom line: They Have Made Progress.

Now perhaps Rob know about something substantive about a recent formal complaint that I don’t, but from what I understand, nobody has had a problem with them in their current location.  So Mark, my question for you is this: shouldn’t we respect the progress that they’ve made thus far by supporting them in their future efforts?

Jay Z: Your points are well taken.  Kinda.  In comparing slumber parties to Safe Haven I am employing the trope of hyperbole.  I am prepared to admit that there is clearly a difference between the two, but if you’ve been paying attention to Safe Haven’s plans, they are working toward creating permanent living structures.  Shouldn’t we give them some leeway while as they continue to make progress?  Maybe your answer to this is no, but that is what’s on the table right now.

Now, your second point seems to be addressing an old issue (read my response to Mark), but your final point might have something to it.  It is entirely possible that we as a community will not support these people.  Here in C-U, we have quite a history of marginalizing groups that don’t adhere to our social norms.  Sorry if you feel admonished by that.

I think that its important to point out that, in part due to the recent weather and in part due to the city’s hardline stance, Safe Haven is currently living inside of St. Mary’s.  But this does not erase the question: do we want to be the kind of community that recognizes individual progress or are we comfortable with binding people to their past mistakes? 

In response to Heather:

I do, in fact, believe that it is a much better idea to support local shelters like TIMES Center and Restoration Urban Ministries than it is to support Safe Haven.  I won’t recommend any of the women’s shelters in particular, since I know less about them, but I am aware that excellent work is being done in them as well.

To be honest, I pretty much decided that I didn’t support Safe Haven from the moment I heard about them for the simple reason that they brought the police down on them for disrupting their neigbors.  That could be close-minded and Rush Limbaugh-like of me, and, yes, I could have investigated the whole situation more by actually going over to Catholic Worker house and talking to Safe Haven members, but that was my gut feeling based on my experience working with people who are homeless and it hasn’t been changed by anything I’ve heard or read since then. 

As far as supporting alternative living situations LIKE Safe Haven, I don’t really have much of an opinion.  It sounds good, but all I know about such groups are what I’ve read about them in your articles and in a piece that was in the News-Gazette.  They sound, good, but that’s not what I was commenting on here. 

My mentioning of why many people get kicked out of homeless shelters - stealing is a common reason - is neither “fair” or “unfair”.  It’s true.  If you think it’s uncool that I mentioned them in response to a piece about Safe Haven, I disagree. It’s a piece about the homeless community in Champaign-Urbana, and that’s what I was commenting on.  I did kind of vent off the specific topics Caleb writes about in his article, and I apologize for that above. 

You write, “In light of spending time with Safe Haven, many of the residents are people like you and me who recently lost their jobs, got evicted, and are now displaced.“

This is absolutely true, and is the reason why the shelters are there in the first place.  When residents show up in shelters for these reasons, have a good attitude when they get there, and work with their recovery advocates, they eventually get out of their negative situations.

As a former recovery advocate, I can tell you that when you do get a resident who is willing to do the hard (but not impossible)work of transitioning out, doesn’t fight you over things like doing the assigned chores that all residents have to do, and who doesn’t drink or drug or disrespect others, you go the extra mile to help those residents. 

As far as couples not being allowed to stay at local shelters, there are plenty of good reasons for that, and staying in a shelter doesn’t have to destroy a relationship.  I can think of one instance where a coulple lived in different facilities - one for men and other women - and, as best I can recall, made it out of their situation entirely. 

My point is, as a shelter resident in this community you do have to bend to the rules of the facilty, but the rules are there for a purpose and are ultimately designed to help you.

You write of the residents of Safe Haven: “Others choose not to live in shelters because they want to avoid transitional programs and have more control over their own lives.“

If someone wants to CHOOSE an alternative lifestyle - for instance living in a tent instead of working with a shelter to transition into an apartment - that’s fine. 

HOWEVER, you can’t annony your neighbors by engaging in disruptive conduct.  Again, I don’t know exactly what Safe Haven got in trouble for in the first place, but by disruptive conduct I mean things like loud public partying, public urination, fighting, panhandling, and so forth.  I’m guessing that’s the kind of stuff that brought the police there in the first place. 

I’ve read that Safe Haven doesn’t tolerate that kind of stuff, but if they don’t tolerate that kind of stuff, why did they get in trouble for it in the first place?

In response to Caleb:

“So Mark, my question for you is this: shouldn’t we respect the progress that they’ve made thus far by supporting them in their future efforts?“

Before St. Mary’s took them in, didn’t Safe Haven get asked to leave a campsite when members were panhandling? 

Again, if Safe Haven doesn’t allow things like panhandling, then why are they getting in trouble for panhandling? 

If they did, in fact, kick out the panhandlers then Safe Haven is basically running their show like a shelter, and it’s an excellent illustration of my point about why many people are asked to leave communities designed for the homeless in the first place.

To answer your question, I’m all for supporting people who are homeless in their efforts.  This is something I’ve done in the past and plan to continue doing.  As Heather pointed out in her comment above, many homeless people are just like you and me and become homeless through no fault of their own.  I’m fully aware that the same thing could eventually happen to me. 

In short, I feel that the best way currently available to support people who are homeless in this community is through the existing shelter and social services system.

It is tempting for those of us who work in social services to think that the specific model that we contribute to is the only model, but it is inarguable that the current services that are in place do not meet the needs of our community.  Part of a comprehensive approach must involve community support for self-empowerment. 
Now I think that a lot of people made judgment from their gut just as you did when they first were made aware of the situation at the worker house, but I don’t think that’s something to be proud of.  Safe Haven has not been without flaws, but they have made progress, and more importantly, they are not going away.  In a few years they may not be called ‘Safe Haven,‘ but these people are a part of our community whether they choose to receive the services that we want them to or not.  Just because we beleive in it doesn’t mean that they have to.  So why not work with them whie they’re organized?
 
I appreciate your passion on this topic, Mark, it’s not an easy nut to crack, but I think we’re just going to have to disagree.

Thanks Caleb,

As I’ve said, I’ve been skeptical of Safe Haven (and again, this was a gut reaction that I could have researched more) since I heard about the group, but have been hesitant about expressing that skepticism in public until now.  This was since I know that the people - for instance, here at Smile Politely, yourself and Heather - who advocate for the group are well-meaning and sincere. 

For the record, I’ve spoken with people who work at Catholic Worker House and at other local social services organizations who have given much more time (years more) and energy working with the homeless than I have and are firmly behind Safe Haven.

I think it’s safe to say we agree on the importance of helping the down and out in this community, but just not how specifically to go about it in this case.

Mark, if you want to support transitional centers but not alternative groups such as Safe Haven, that’s fine. Like Caleb said, you and I can agree to disagree. Even if you don’t support Safe Haven, I still think it is important to recognize this—Local social service agencies are doing a great job, but they are not for everyone and they cannot, on their own, meet all the needs in our community.
 
I will also say that a couple living at different facilities is a perfect example of giving people no dignity. In that scenario, all control is taken from the couple, and they are separated, not by choice, during the most difficult and vulnerable time in their life. If my husband and I lost our home, we would stay on a friend’s couch or with Safe Haven, not in separate transitional centers.
 
Also, since some clarification is obviously needed—Safe Haven never had the police called because of “loud public partying, public urination, fighting, panhandling, and so forth.“ That information is based entirely on assumption, not on fact. There was only one run-in with police, as far as I’m aware, and that was very early on. Safe Haven actually asked police to come to the Catholic Worker House and engage in dialogue about legal housing options. The police did come, but only to film and harass the group, not to engage in dialogue. 
 
I have stayed the night with these people and can assure you they are not loud partiers. In fact, they are one of the quietest groups I have ever been around. And public urination was not a problem because they have always had bathrooms to use (inside the Catholic Worker House, for example). There WERE neighborhood complaints about homeless people, and the community jumped to the conclusion that Safe Haven was causing these problems, but the homeless people who were drunk or stealing were not even Safe Haven residents. 
 
Like any community, Safe Haven does have rules, and they did kick 2 people out of the group for panhandling. I would not expect either Safe Haven or a shelter/transitional center (or any community, for that matter) to function without rules.
 
There seems to be some kind of consensus in these comments that Safe Haven is being disruptive, but to my knowledge, that is not and has never been the case. Please do not make these assertions without having facts to back them up. I agree that Catholic Worker House was not an ideal location for them, but they have clearly moved on. I think St. Mary’s, on the other hand, is an ideal location. There are no houses around there, except for one home that belongs to a group of nuns. I’m pretty sure Caleb is right—no neighbors have been complaining.
 
Before you blaspheme Safe Haven, I challenge you to go spend some time with them. You’ll quickly learn that they are not those outrageously disruptive people that Mark describes, and in fact, you might even like them.

Jay-Z, I find your arguments to be pretty dangerous. People have been breaking laws for years as a form of nonviolent protest. It’s how you change things in this country. What if Rosa Parks had given up her seat in the front of the bus? What if the sit-ins had not taken place during the Civil Rights Movement?
 
And really, have the majority of Champaign residents declared tents to be an unacceptable form of housing? Was there a vote I never heard about?
 
p.s. Rob, I’ll be barbecuing some squirrel on my patio around midnight. It’s a much more sustainable meat than most factory-farmed beef, pork, or chicken. I’d invite you over, but you clearly don’t like barbecued squirrel.

Heather: do you marinade that or does a dry rub work?

I’m going to sign off on this discussion; I’ve made all the points that I wanted to make.
 
Rob, in response to an earlier Splog article by Heather, you made the comment, “I think the love is at various social service agencies already in existence.”  From what I’ve seen from spending hours in a local shelter (admittedly not as a resident, but as a volunteer and employee), that’s very much the case and it’s an observation that I haven’t read in Smile Politely, the News-Gazette or heard anyone else make since this story broke.  So thanks for making it.
Heather, I don’t want to get into an argument with you about whether or not Safe Haven members or other people got the police into the situation, because – as you say and as I’ve admitted from the beginning – I don’t know the facts beyond what I’ve read in the press and heard second hand, and, no, I haven’t spent any time around Safe Haven as you suggest doing.
 
I remain skeptical about everything you say about Safe Haven being blamed unjustly, because in my experience that’s the kind of stuff people say – both homeless and non-homeless - after the police show up, even when I’ve seen with my own eyes that it’s not the case.  It’s been my experience, as both a shelter volunteer and paid employee, that people who are homeless are especially prone to this kind of “I didn’t do it” stuff.  I’m making a negative stereotype here, but it’s one borne of empirical evidence.  I’m well aware that it’s exactly the kind of thing that mean-spirited folks say who, for no good reason, flat out don’t like people who are homeless.

It’s also been my experience in life in general that people accused of disruptive behavior (including myself) which brings police attention are usually guilty of it. 

In closing, I want to say that people who are advocating for Safe Haven are human beings trying to help other human beings and that’s a noble thing no matter whether I agree with their methods of doing so or not – which is another reason I haven’t wanted to comment on this story until now.  I could certainly be wrong about the wisdom of supporting Safe Haven, and if I ever find out that’s the case I’ll freely admit it.

Fair enough. Mark, I really am thankful for social services and their staff/volunteers. I’m sorry if I haven’t expressed that clearly enough. You’re entitled to your skepticism about Safe Haven. I’m just really uncomfortable with the assumptions and accusations. I mean, what would the world be like if we all trusted our “gut reactions” without investigating further?

FYI - Safe Haven recently launched a website where more info can be found: http://www.safehavencu.org

This is good, compassionate advocacy.
 
Heather regards Safe Haven as a group of individuals, and sees good in the members that have not been kicked out yet. That’s because Heather is kind, and compassionate. (And yes,  I would love to come over for some Boca Squirrel. I jogged past during your last cookout, and the patio looks great.)
 
I regard Safe Haven as a concept, a campaign—and not a group of individuals. I’m not being callous to them. My point is personnel-neutral. It would apply equally if Safe Haven were comprised of Bertie Wooster, Daisy & Jay Gatsby and whole group of swells.
 
Zoning laws are a hugely important aide to getting along. They’re built on centuries of human experience. People ignore them from time to time. But after a couple of years living above a biker bar, or a busy restaurant, most people come to recognize the value of R-1. (They then move to the suburbs, and start breeding. And when someone seeks a variance to build a biker bar next door, they take up arms in opposition.)
 
Rosa Parks sought equal protection of the law. Safe Haven is seeking a variance—different protection of the law.
 
Caleb, what would you do if I gave you the name(s) of persons who discreetly seek the protection of existing law? Would you publish them? Would you go to their homes and try to kindly persuade them to change their minds?
 
I belong to a couple of advocacy groups as well. Yesterday, yet another man was stabbed to death when he asked some late night revellers to turn down the music.
 
Today, in Oregon, a man named Scott is accused of terrorism. Some of his neighbors have been branded meth addicts and child-abusers. You can read about it here.
 
Scott and his neighbors have pursued, through legal channels, the enforcement of ordinances. A woman nearby decided to house a private kennels. She was denied a permit, but she did it anyway.
 
In seeking municipal assistance to shut down the operation, the lawful citizens have opened themselves to abuse—as usual, and they’re getting a lot of it—as usual.
 
Even the terminology used to describe them “complainants” makes it seems as if they’re the instigators.
 
Anyway, I urge to continue your quest to help those less fortunate. I will continue to seek equal protection of the law for everybody, sans harassment.

Rob, I’m not sure if we’re talking about the same thing.  Your many non sequiturs aside, if people are having trouble with Safe Haven they should pursue those problems by filing a complaint with the city.  And if you know of a recent complaint that has been filed through the proper channels, holler at me.  Otherwise, I’m having trouble making heads or tails of your argument.

I read the website Heather linked. I encourage others to read it.
 
Among the aspirational aspects: “Residents find a sense of place, privacy, and personal space.“
 
I think that’s great, and it’s exactly the thing I was defending when I first joined this conversation—in an earlier SP story, which said a family in Urbana offered its backyard to Safe Haven.
 
Another aspirational point: “Residents gain the ability to cohabitate with spouses or intimate partners.“
 
This is one of Heather’s chief goals. I agree with her. I wonder whether other social service agencies discriminate between the sexes for practical reasons, or Biblical reasons.
 
A final goal from the website: “Residents get to have pets, an important aspect of creating a home for oneself.“
 
And so I imagine sitting in the backyard, remembering the sense of place, privacy, and personal space I had enjoyed before 15 people and their animals moved in, and began intimately cohabitating.
 
And this is all I’m saying—advocate for alternative lifestyles. Live alternative lifestyles. That’s all good. Like Mark says, it goes bad when you start making these choices for others. And that’s what happens when zoning restrictions are flouted.

Rob, who has Safe Haven made choices for?  As Heather suggested earlier, your arguments don’t seem very substative and more often than not, appear to hinge on common knowlege, generalities and arbitrary dogma.  I’d like to challenge you to come off of your rhetorical position here and actually ask yourself: are you dealing in facts or are you arbitrarily crafting an argument?  “That’s what happens when when zoning restrictions are flouted” is about as general and dogmatic as you can get.  Give me some specifics, Rob, because that is not what’s happening here.

Anyplace they move which is not zoned for their purposes demands that anyone else in that area relinquish their land use expectations.
 
Ask long as we’re answering questions, maybe you’d answer mine. Here, I’ll paste it again:
 
Caleb, what would you do if I gave you the name(s) of persons who discreetly seek the protection of existing law? Would you publish them? Would you go to their homes and try to kindly persuade them to change their minds?

@Caleb
 
I actually don’t think you’ve answered my question regarding why Safe Haven thinks they’re exempt from the current laws.  If somebody wanted to erect a McMansion in the middle of historic Urbana, would this be a commendable move because they’re looking to live an alternative lifestyle?  Or would it be a violation of existing zoning laws?  How far does your support of alternative lifestyles go?  Safe Haven’s lack of respect for the community at large has bothered me from the beginning.  They seem to be saying to the community “Hello, we’re Safe Haven, we’re here to violate the rules that you’ve established and that you’ve all been living by peacefully, and you should accept us otherwise you’re unsympathetic to our plight.“
 
 @Heather
 
In addition to the points Rob made about the significant differences between the civil rights movement and Safe Haven, yes, civil disobedience is a wonderful thing and a great tool in our democracy.  It just astounds me that the Safe Haven advocates seem so surprised that the local community is looking to enforce the laws that Safe Haven is flagrantly violating.  That’s the other side of civil disobedience, you’ve got to be ready to pay the price for your crimes and hope that there is enough outrage to fuel social change.  The vote to deny tent cities happened when Champaign passed their current zoning laws and those laws have been in place without any outcry for years now.  The vote to deny tent cities continues as a majority of Champaign residents sit silently instead of voicing their support, as Caleb was complaining about.  As I mentioned earlier, it seems that the people of Champaign aren’t interested in supporting Safe Haven.  Maybe it’s time to seek a different community with a more progressive view on housing issues rather than sit around chastising the people of Champaign for not supporting your views?
 
@General
 
My primary interest here is seeing the will of the people of Champaign respected.  I respect their ability to dictate what sort of community they want to live in and what sort of housing they choose to permit in their city.  If there was a significant desire for tent communities, I think the democratic process is sufficient for satisfying that need.  

OK, I thought I was done, but I’m back.

I called up a friend whose judgment I trust and who is in a position to know what did or didn’t happen at Catholic Worker House that caused neighbors to complain and police to eventually get involved.

My friend told me that, while disruptive conduct did occur, it was on the part of other people at Catholic Worker House and not by Safe Haven members. I believe him.

I now believe that my earlier assumption – that Safe Haven people did cause the disruptive behavior that got neighbors mad and police involved – is incorrect. 

My intent in originally commenting on Caleb’s piece was to make general comments on the topic of homelessness in Champaign-Urbana, especially in regards to the mechanics of the shelter system, and I stand by all of those comments.

I regret getting into a discussion about the specifics of Safe Haven, and apologize for any defamation or offense I may have caused by doing so.

@ Rob: Nobody is being bothered by Safe Haven in their current location.  Your “laws are laws” argument could be used just as easily to argue in favor of sodomy laws.  As for your question, I choose none of the above.  My point is that, if people have reason to complain, they should use the proper legal avenues to do so.  But hey, I like your veiled allusion to McCarthyism.
 
@ Jay-Z: How many laws got bent for developers in downtown Champaign?  How about for the Burnham project?  Answer: A lot.  And amazingly, there’s very little public outry about that.  Why?  Because we’re willing to tolerate a little fudging here and there so long as the people doing the fudging are wearing business suits. 
 
I’d also like to remind you that the democratic process has brought us some very good things.  It has also upheld slavery.  So, again, if you feel disrespected by Safe Haven, perhaps you haven’t done enough looking into them.  If you feel admonished by my article, you might challenge yourself to consider why that is.
 
@ Mark: I really appreciate your willingness, not only to look into this issue for yourself, but to share what you found with the SP community.

No, this is genuinely good news John. I favor almost all victimless “criminal” behaviors that improve the lives of humans—sodomy, pot smokin’, apostasy.
Now that they’re not bothering anybody, The Man won’t know where to go hassle them. (Watch out jaywalkers—that means more itchy cops on the beat.)
I guess we won’t be hearing any more about the Safe Haven, apart from here on SP where we’ll continue to enjoy the upbeat reports on how they’re all getting along.

@Caleb
 
You’re right that nobody cares if the people in the suits are breaking the laws.  It’s one of the quirks of representative government.  The laws are enforced, or not enforced, at the people’s behest.  If the people are convinced that the laws being broken will benefit them in the long run or if the transgressions are relatively minor, then there’s a good chance there won’t be any public outcry, or significant enough dissatisfaction at the ballot box to change things.  So, as you mentioned in your article, nobody is complaining about the zoning laws being enforced at Safe Haven, and it seems to me that this is because the people of Champaign generally approve of the City’s actions. Silence can speak volumes sometimes.  On the counter side of that, it seems that somebody complained about the presence of Safe Haven and therefore they’re dealing with the authorities.
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “looking into them”.  Do you think that if I only had a chance to meet the people who comprise Safe Haven I would change my mind?  My problem is not with the people or their plight, but rather the principle behind Safe Haven. The laws and regulations of a community are a social contract and when a group seeks acceptance by the community in spite of that contract, I feel that’s bad form.  The vast majority of people in Champaign are playing by the rules, and Safe Haven should as well.  I’m sympathetic towards the people of Safe Haven and the issue of homelessness, however, I don’t think that a tent city is the right course of action, and I especially don’t think Safe Haven’s confrontational behavior is the right course of action.
 
If I felt admonished by your article, it was probably from statements like “A major reason that they’ve been unable to appeal to the city’s better impulse on this matter is because of the tepid support that they’ve received from you.“  If that’s not an admonishment, then what would you call it?  It’s not much of a challenge to figure out why I might feel admonished when it’s there in black and white in your article.
I’m obligated to point out that the democratic process also abolished slavery, so at best, it’s a wash on that topic.  It’s probably one of the better illustrations of Martin Luther King Jr.‘s quote “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.“  If you feel that Safe Haven is on the just side of the moral universe, then you can take solace in knowing that eventually Champaign may curve in that direction.  In the meantime, I’d suggest trying to utilize the process to change the current zoning laws and if the vote on that fails the next step would be to rouse enough public support to make the issue unavoidable for the elected leaders.  Tent cities today seems rife with confrontation, though with enough work there’s always the potential for tent cities tomorrow.

Wow, the comments just keep piling up! Mark, I also wanted to thank you for your honesty. And Caleb, thanks for writing and for inciting this intensity and passion (on all sides)!
 
Jay-Z, you say that Safe Haven should play by the rules (the laws of Champaign) just like everyone else. Here’s the thing: Many of them would like to. They didn’t want to get evicted and find themselves on the streets. I would say, if you want them to “play by the rules,“ then provide affordable housing for them. With both Gateway Studios in Champaign and Autumn Glen in Rantoul closing down, the affordable housing options are few to none around here.
 
And FalconFan, I think traditional housing for each of these people would be great; I just don’t think it’s very practical. That would cost a lot of money, and it’s not clear to me where that money would come from. As Mark pointed out early on, the existing social service agencies are having a hard time staying afloat as it is. The Safe Haven folks would like to build micro-houses (see http://www.safehavencu.org/resources.html). It’s maybe not your ideal housing, but it’s better than what they have now. And since no one seems to be stepping up to build an affordable apartment complex in Champaign, I think it’s a viable solution.
 
John Sullivan from Center for Women in Transition told me awhile back that he doesn’t actually support the idea of tent communities (probably for reasons similar to yours), but he supports Safe Haven becuase (knowing that his own shelter is full) he sees it as necessary right now.

Heather, do you know what the HUD and Section 8 options are right now?
 
Do you know how a person in need would find out, now that the Urban League is no longer there to be a conduit?

Those are great questions, Rob. I have been told that the waiting list for Section 8 vouchers has been closed (as in, you can’t put your name on the list even if you want to). Beyond that, I’ve been told that there is a substantial waiting list and you might wait a couple of years or so for a housing voucher.
 
I don’t actually know how to verify any of this, though…

@Heather
 
What constitutes affordable housing for this group?  What were the rates at Gateway Studios before it closed?
 
I’m not interested in becoming a landlord, but I’m curious as to what price range is acceptable to Safe Haven and what the historic housing rates were for some of the now defunct low cost housing.