I just signed up. I urge others to do the same. Let’s walk the walk people.

We really need to get out and support this event, not only because it’s a good local cause but also to combat the stuff that PRMA and PADS is already starting to pull.

FOr example, yesterday’s St. Paul of the Cross bulletin (Adrienne Timm’s Social Service Ministry page) carried a half-page ad for a PADS car wash on June 23rd IN PALATINE!  And no mention whatsoever about the Center of COncern’s golf outing.

So at least one church in the PRMA is already shilling for PADS at the expense of an established local organization like the Center.

I am in complete agreement that this is a GREAT program worthy of strong community support. Again let me state that if there were a vote on PADS my vote would be no.

Having said that, it seems to me that we are back to the point I have be trying to make – it is a matter of target market. My read is that this program in general targets a more narrow segment of “the homeless” (I often miss things so please point out where I am wrong). I have read the web site and love the approach, especially the idea of getting in front of the problem with a homeless prevention program. As you corrently state this is a problem that ain’t going away and in fact is growing. But, there are thos pesky other targets (mental illness, addiction, etc) that this program does not appear to address.

Also, I found it interesting that financial support also comes from neighboring communities. I would assume this means that the center does not just service Park Ridge cases. I think this is a good thing but it is a position that I have often heard objected to on this board.

I guess what I am saying is I congratulate the staff and volunteers of this program for their excellent work. They are making a real difference in peoples lives. I still meintain the difference is who you target.

Anonymous on 06.16.08 9:36 am – If the PADS shelter is only going to be a flophouse for a “target market” of addicts and the mentally ill, most of who are not from Park Ridge, then I don’t want it. And I’d bet most other Park Ridge residents don’t want it, either. All a PADS shelter will do is attract more of these “target market” people than we already have, so what’s the point? Should we put up signs at the train stations and at every main entryway to town saying “Give us your alcoholics, your drug addicts, your mentally ill looking for a place to flop for the night”?

Anon; 9:36,

Log on to Maine Mental Health Center. Also currently located in Park Ridge.

Looks like P.R. is 2 for 2

OOPS! I forgot Avenues to Independance and the Teen Center. I guess that’s 4 for 4.

Also, you are correct COC is funded from neighboring communities, those that are serviced by Maine Township, of which P.R. in smack in the middle of.

This gets back to a point that I’ve seen posted on this site on more than one occasion, perhaps in different words. If what you’ve got is working, put your efforts and money into that rather than into something new. And if what you’ve got isn’t working, then get rid of it and bring in something new.

It looks like Center of Concern (and some of the other organizations already in place) is working, so what’s the point of PADS?

I can’t be there tomorrow night, but I’m sending a contribution.

With Center of Concern based in Park Ridge and already operating those three homeless programs, there’s something that just doesn’t set right with me about how the PRMA just happened to come up with the “new” idea to put a PADS shelter in Park Ridge instead of, for example, trying to work with the Center of Concern’s programs.

These are all good questions. It is hard to tell from their website if the “need” PRMA saw for PADS is not met by Center of Concern. PRMA says that they were motivated by increased visits to the churches asking for help. Did they refer them to COC? Is COC designed to help these people?

I would sure like to know who the first PRMA member was that suggested looking into a PADS shelter, and what was their connection (if any) to PADS. And I still find it curious that all these men/women “of the cloth,” when supposedly confronted by an increase in homeless coming to their doors, chose to bring in a PADS shelter instead of taking care of them themselves, either by putting them up at their own facility/home or getting them a room at a cheap motel (as Public Watchdog suggested).  WWJD? Pawn the homeless off on somebody else, obviously.

Any truth to the rumor that there were some unhappy St. Paul parents at last night’s city Council meeting?

In addition to knowing which genius member of the PRMA thought, “Let’s ask PADS!”, I would also like to know who came up with the “PADS model”. I can’t find anything about where this “model” for homeless shelters originated.

Unhappy? Much more than that. They felt angry, hurt, resentful, scared and betrayed. What struck me was the discussion from the Chicago police officer and the Lutheran General nurse who deal with homeless individuals through work on a regular basis and have children at St. Paul’s school. They brought up an issue I had not thought about: infectious disease. There is little doubt that the health of the individuals who would be utilizing the shelter is poor. They are prone to infections and other communicable diseases and would be using the same bathroom facilities as the school children within a short time span. I am close to an emergency room nurse practitioner who confirmed that the risk of spreading infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and scabies is very real.

The more I think about it, the worse this idea gets. However, Alderman Allegretti was right about one thing last night: the City may be limited in what it can do to prevent such an unhealthy situation. The first line of defense must come from the school parents and parishioners who should make their feelings known to the church leaders in no uncertain terms.

Here we go again!! I am completely against a PADS site in PR but the arguments are so funny!

We have the hinting at corruption. I do not agree with PRMA’s position and their selection of PADS so obviously someone must have known someone. Money was probably exchanged. They are all crooks, right?

Then we attack their decision to look for possible solutions that already exist. If they were really “of the cloth” they would take care of this themselves. Have you ever heard of outsourcing?? Businesses do it and Churches do it. Churches support and send people to minister in facilities all over the world. They go to Africa to minister to people with AIDS through programs that already exist. Are they hypocritical because they did not go to Africa and start a program from scratch? Could it be that PRMA looked at PADS and saw they had a plan related to process and proceedures that already existed? Could it be they looked at the Hope portion of the program and saw something?

If the process are the best is another issue. I have serious questions about them. We all can and have questioned and pointed out issues with the proceedures.

Lastly, how is this pawning the homeless off on somebody else? If it goes through it will be in one of their facilities. I am sure their would be either church leadership and/or congregation members their as volunteers.

What a strange position to be in. I am completely against PADS and I do not go to church yet I feel compelled to defend them against comments like these.

Anonymous 6/17/08 at 10:07 am,

For somebody who says something is funny, you sure don’t seem to be in good humor!

If you were referring to my asking about who originated the PADS model in your remark about their being crooks and hinting at corruption, well you can go suck your toes.

I believe it is a very legitimate question to ask, “Where did the PADS model originate?” What’s wrong with knowing the history? All the PADS sites love to toot their history horn about their success stories, so why can’t anyone know about how this Corporation came into being? I am also curious about whether there are any franchise fees paid to the originating corporation, like there is with the United Way, and PADS Inc. is a corporation. It is listed as a corporation with the State of Illinois.

Anonymous on 06.17.08 10:07 am:

Glad to see you’re amused with the PRMA’s plan to make Park Ridge another stop on the PADS tour for alcoholics, drug addicts and the mentally ill – as if we don’t have enough of those already (dark humor).

As for “hinting at corruption,” no hinting, suspicion or speculation would even be an option if the PRMA members had been totally upfront and transparent about their PADS dealings from the very beginning – which we are now being told was almost two years ago, if any of “them” are to be believed. So yeah, I agree with the other posters who want to know exactly which PRMA official should get the “credit” for originating this dumb idea, and who were the next to jump on that particular bandwagon.

But you really cracked me up with the idea that PRMA members are “outsourcing” what they claim is their – and OUR – obligation to help the homeless. Or maybe I should say “crocked me up” because that’s what that argument is: A crock! But if outsourcing is your thing, how about Park Ridge outsourcing its homeless? PRMA members and their volunteers can go out every Sunday night between October and April, round up any homeless they find, and “outsource” them to Palatine, maybe even to Beth Nabors’ house.

“Pawning off” the homeless is not taking them into your own home or, alternately, taking them to a motel. Both of those are “private” solutions, as opposed to starting a homeless shelter that becomes a “public” solution. If the PRMA members won’t walk the walk, they shouldn’t talk the talk.

How about you, Anonymous on 06.17.08 10:07 am? Why don’t you volunteer to take a homeless person in, or pay for a motel room for the night?

Let’s not lose sight of the real goal here, people: The Center of COncern’s mini-golf outing tonight. Take yourself, take a friend, take a spouse or child, and let’s show how we take care of our own – kind of a twist on the merchants’ “shop locally” campaign.

Sunshine:

First, my comment was addressed at the post by anon 9:28. Second, I am not nearly flexible enough to suck my toes!

In terms of the question you posed about the PADS model and where did it originate, I completely agree!! I have done some limited research about shelters and can find not model or point of origin for PADS. There are other shelters around the country who follow similiar models. As I have said proviously, I believe any model that includes servicing all the homeless community and you will have the same issues and objections you have today.

I stand by my comments about the anon 9:28 post.

Anonymous 6/17/08 at 10:43 am,

Since you are “not nearly flexible enough to suck (your own) toes!” will you be “outsourcing” that job?

Thank you for the clarifying your comments.

Ha! Ok I am guilty! Outsourcing was clearly the wrong word. But I think it is completely reasonable for a church to seek outside resourses in areas they have limited expertise.

You can argue they made the wrong choice in partners. You can argue they did not think it through. You can argue the consequesces will suck. I agree. But to say they somehow they are “not of the cloth” becuase sought outside resources is wrong, to me at least.

I don’t see any comment that says the PRMA members are NOT “of the cloth,” irrespective of all the boneheaded things they’ve done on this deal. As I read that comment, it’s just saying that the PRMA members are hypocrites. So moved!

“And I still find it curious that all these men/women “of the cloth,” when supposedly confronted by an increase in homeless coming to their doors, chose to bring in a PADS shelter instead of taking care of them themselves”

This is the comment I was reacting to.

Hey, whatever happened to Sell Out?

Still here

I did attend the Center of Concern’s fundraiser and can report that it was a wonderful event. I am impressed by this organization and would like to see the Ministerial Association use them as an ally in their fight to help the homeless of PARK RIDGE instead of utilizing an organization which I am afraid really is little more than a string of flophouses with a poorly realized goal of transitioning hard-core homeless to a different program. I do not believe they can or will solve whatever homeless problem we have in town. They will simply add a new element to it and exacerbate it in the process. As a community, we are far better off throwing our support to the Center.

I attended a recent Council meeting regarding PADS shelters. I do not attend St Paul or have children in school, but I was especially moved by the testimony of those parishioners. I heard nothing to convince me the PADS model would meaningfully help an individual homeless person or address homelessness as an issue. I came away with the impression that PRMA and PADS were trying to force their own agenda on Park Ridge citizens. I agree with many of you that the Center of Concern is already addressing this issue and does so in a more comprehensive manner. And they are more forthcoming about their funding and goals. An issue I have not heard discussed is the fact that (according to Catholic Charities) Mary Seat of Wisdom and St. Paul of the Cross are partners with Catholic Charities in an organization called New Hope Apartments, apartment buildings for low income families. Is there perhaps a plan to build one in Park Ridge, and is the wrangling over regulations regarding the Church’s use of its property a vanguard motion to open the door to low income housing sites? I formerly lived in or attended school at two Catholic parishes which were closed by the Archdiocese for financial reasons, which properties were later sold or leased for profit. May I suggest that the Archdiocese use their own properties for shelters instead of asking their parishioners (who work hard to keep their parish and school funded and viable) to endanger their children. No one here is callous or ignorant about the real issues of poverty, and I know many of us support charities or volunteer according to our own consciences; however, we choose to live ordinary, secular lives, in which we also hold our civic responsibilities in high regard. If others wish to be missionaries, God bless them, but they are not entitled to tell the rest of us we are unGodly for disagreeing with their methods, nor are they entitled to force the rest of us to shoulder the consequences of their decisions.
1-Reject PADS
2-Reject temporary shelters
3-Support the systems in place, such as Center for Concern
4-Require PRMA to disclose completely their agenda.