Issue date: 10/23/08 Section: Editorial/Opinion

There are countless statistics I could throw out there regarding the problem of homelessness in America. Essentially, though, I think it is an obvious enough problem that I really don't need to.

As the winter months approach, the living conditions become worse and worse for those who don't have homes. So one might think with this in mind, homeless shelters would be preparing to take on the seasonal challenge of sheltering the homeless and those who neighbor these shelters would be on board as well. Apparently not so in one area of Green Bay.

In an Oct. 20 Green Bay Press Gazette article, it is reported that certain members of the Green Bay Plan Commission are not happy with the St. John the Evangelist Homeless Shelter opening its annual winter season shelter in two weeks. Additionally, the nearby neighborhood of Navarino and its neighborhood association members have spoken out on the shelter opening along with Green Bay mayor Jim Schmitt.

The reason for the uproar began back in 2005 when the shelter first opened. Early on, community members felt it was to blame for an increase in vagrancy, petty crimes, littering and other related problems. The complaints resonated with some of the city council members and they began to feel the shelter was a bad fit for the neighborhood. The city, they claim, already had more than its fair share of the area's shelters and homeless.

In response, council members added restrictions to the shelter's operation. When the shelter closed in the spring of 2007, the council listed several conditions needed before it could receive its conditional use permit the following year. As a result of the shelter not being able to meet the conditions, the city council declined to issue the shelter a permit.

Being pushed to the brink, the Catholic Diocese made the courageous and right decision to announce that despite not having the permit, the doors to the shelter would be open. The city then eventually gave the shelter its permit with the diocese agreeing to try and conform to the council's requested conditions.

One of these requested conditions however was that the 2007-08 season would be the shelter's last. But alas, the announcement came that the shelter would be reopening its doors for the 2008-09 season, much to the dismay of those who really have no political clout to forestall a reopening. Again the decision was a courageous yet right one.

I won't tell you I know anything about the homeless problem in Green Bay because I don't. I have maybe walked the city's streets five times, all of those being near Lambeau Field, and that really is no indication of how the city is in general.

What I can say though is the comments spouted off by these ignorant city council and plan commission members, along with the mayor, make me believe they suffer from a syndrome that is all too common in cities across the United States.

This syndrome entails the idea that certain cities don't have certain problems. The neighbors of the shelter would like nothing more than to close the shelter's doors simply because they feel it reflects on them. Because they live next to a homeless shelter they have to deal with the social stigma that comes with that. When it is said that the shelter is a bad fit for the city, it is a nice way of avoiding flat out saying they don't want homeless people living near them.

So in order to get what they want these people will say crime has risen and littering has increased and that it is all a result of homelessness. But seeing as though the article mentions nothing about there being actual police reports saying the crimes are being committed by the individuals living in the homeless shelter I would have to assume the rise in crime is a coincidence. Additionally, until I actually see one of the persons living in the shelter throw a bottle on the ground, it is absurd to correlate the homeless shelter with the rise in litter.

I would be willing to bet if the shelter closed down and a rich Caucasian family bought it and the crime rate and littering rate further increased you wouldn't hear the city council, the plan commission or the mayor asking them to leave. Why? The answer is simple. What is so bad about having a rich Caucasian family living next door?

Another decision that is even more ridiculous is that the city already has more than its fair share of the area's shelters and homeless. In response I would like to ask a question - since when is too much of a good thing a bad thing? Obviously it isn't a good thing if the crime rates and littering rate could directly be linked to those living in the homeless shelter.

But since when is it acceptable to turn away help for people when you have the resources? This isn't a case where a certain homeless shelter is causing a city to go over-budget and they have to cut it. This is a situation where the resources are ample. Volunteers aren't an issue and obviously space isn't an issue. The main issue is that members of the council, the commission and the mayor don't want to help these homeless individuals because they feel they have already helped enough homeless people. Apparently, despite being involved in politics, they have a quota regarding the number of people they can help and they don't feel like going over that quota.

The homeless problem, whether being in Green Bay or any other city, is too great to be ignored for petty reasons. My initial reaction is that I could listen to hours and hours of the officials talk about how horrible the opening of this shelter is.

But when really mulling that over, it probably wouldn't be that entertaining. It wouldn't be fun to watch those devoted to helping out a city's population drop the ball and not help those who need it most simply because they don't like how it projects that image onto themselves. I can only hope that sooner rather than later they realize much more is at stake then them avoiding the correlation that comes with having homeless shelters in their area. People's lives and futures hang in the balance and it would be a shame to point them down a road of distress just because of what others may think of that act.

Hansen is a junior print journalism major and editorial editor of The Spectator. "Mmmboppin' with Scott Hansen" appears every Thursday.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools