IMAGE: KSFY
And what is the SFPD, Dudley House and city government doing about it?
The Sioux Falls Police Department told Buehner and other business owners
to put up no loitering and no trespassing signs to keep people out but many owners are concerned that signage would only make customers uncomfortable and ultimately hurt their business further. So what’s causing the spike in drunken trespassing? Buehner and others say these incidents have been on the rise ever since the Bishop Dudley Hospitality House opened up next door. The reason? Their “no questions asked” policy.
Was their a need for a shelter of this kind? Most definitely! The problem is the location. The shelter should have been closer to the Jail and Safe House, and closer to Minnesota Avenue, instead of being plopped in the middle of a neighborhood.
The Whittier neighborhood residents warned of the problems before ground was even broke, and the city council and Catholic Diocese ignored the warnings. The residents asked for a plan to deal with the potential problems, and were given nothing.
So what is the plan?
It’s too late to move the shelter now, but the residents at least deserve a plan to help patrol the neighborhood, because saying this, just doesn’t cut it;
Campbell says his staff does all they can to help change their guest’s behavior, but once they leave the center they are out of his control. That being said, if the problem persists Campbell says he is more than willing to work on a solution
The ‘solution’ should have been in place before you even opened the doors. But once again, we are using Whittier Neighborhood for the dumping grounds of our social ills so the elite can live in peace in their tax subsidized condos downtown.
Maybe the mobile food trucks can park there on the evening and then you can hear the rich snobs of nimbys clearly state. We don’t want those types around here. The city cleared out
The loopers cleared out the american Indians. May as well get rid of bars etc that the lofters don’t like and put them on the other side of the
Tracks. You can get your taco fix and spend the nite
with Dudley rather than a duo
Last paragraph says it all. ‘Build it and they will come’ whether it’s a Walmart, Events Center, or Flop House. There are degree programs for municipal development but the people in city planning were installed politically or paternally with inferior qualifications.
OK.. But where should the dudley house be? The people who frequent the shelters live in this area for a reason. This area has the most places for them to shelter in. They don’t have cars!
I’m not attempting to be callus, I’m just stating the facts. What should the dudley house do? What should the city do? Should we throw all the drunks in jail? NO. Should the dudley house be out near the water treatment plant? NO. Or should people not live in the Whittier neighborhood? Should we establish yet another program to attempt to curb alcoholism and homelessness?
Another complaint with no attempt to solve the problem.
Did you read my post? It should be by the jail on a main thoroughfare, not smack dab in a residential area next to an elementary school.
According to Google Maps the BDH is .2 miles from Whittier. It is 1 block from 10th St which is a main thoroughfare. In the same block of the location there is a Chinese restaurant, a Mexican grocery/burrito place, Handyman, the Banquet, a McDonalds, warehouses, hardly what I would consider “smack dab” in a residential.
So let’s put it by the jail. According to Google Maps it would be .2 miles from Hawthorne Elementary. Further away from the Banquet during the winter months. Across the street from residential neighborhoods.
I guess the only answer is to move the schools.
Yeah, we can speculate all we want or make excuses why it wouldn’t work by the jail, but we both know why. They have been wanting to move the homeless problem out of the main drag of DT so the condo dwellers can walk to Minerva’s without being pan-handled. It really is that simple.
It really is that simple.
This was a long range plan by the City to relocate the homeless and transients out of the downtown area.
It began with The Banquet being relocated from Main Avenue to its current location on 8th Street, and the multi-million dollar renovation of the DT public library.
The only piece left to move was the Good Shepard Center which is now the Bishop Dudley Hospitality House.
The Dudley House is private and nonprofit. The city does nothing for the homeless except dictate where conscientious giving citizens can’t help. The county does what it can but welfare programs have bled their budget because the city sales tax partition is to much. Our fine city builds coliseums & water features while there’s a growing indigent population. Why not locate the aquatics center near the Dudley house so there’s a place for them to bathe?
There’s an area in Dallas called Oak Lawn and an area in Denver known as East Colfax. There are fine restaurants easy access with lots of parking. There’s a few old theaters where there’s plays. There are small commercial art galleries. The areas blossomed because real estate was cheap and there’s primary street arteries. Before the resurgence there was crime, prostitution, homelessness, and homosexual life style. It’s still there. Part of the attraction for any retreat space is what makes it unusual. SOHO in NY was once like this. Times Square has become a prime commercial area when it was the worst crime area less than 20 years ago. A big reason downtown is becoming successful is its character. Not because it’s where snobs live and prejudice restaurants sell attitude.
Well, it is apparent that everyone has prejudices–some are prejudice against drunks and some against successful people. Interesting. Of course, there is no simple solution. But……given that this issue was raised in advance of the move to the new location, I think that the Bishop Dudley House should shoulder most of the responsibility to ensure that the surrounding area of the location should not impacted by their decision to locate there. They have a moral responsibility to be a good neighbor and should probably establish their own neighborhood patrols–either paid staff or volunteers that support their mission. Outreach/mentor sort of people that can deter negative activities in the region. They could keep track of the participants of the sheltering benefits and coordinate it with their patrols. It isn’t appropriate to take on a moral responsibility of sheltering people without taking on the responsibility of ensuring your quest does not impact others.
Sammy, that is the best comment I have read so far about the situation. The House director’s comment about how these people are no longer their problem once they kick them out the door is irresponsible. The charity they provide is fantastic, but also provide that charity responsibly.
I agree with Sammy,
Obama I guess in the Health Care has labeled a tax the Responsibility Tax. At some point these agencies and even our idiots at city hall will need to be held accountable for putting hell onto a neighborhood as its pretty clear the “lofty ones” are purging downtown, they don’t want to see no evil, hear no evil, but they sure can speak it.
Follow up questions to Sammy:
What should the dudley volunteers or paid staff be looking for during these patrols?
What should the dudley staff do when they find folks violating these rules while on these patrols in public?
I would encourage folks to go and tour BDHH to witness the awesome ministry they are doing for the community. I would also encourage you to look at Art’s Auto and around his area just a block south of BDHH and tell me what you think. A majority of the people utilizing BDHH are very appreciative of the services offered and help out with things when they can. The few that try to utilize Art’s Auto and then BDHH are the ones causing the problem. It goes back to the 80/20 rule-20% of the people are 80% of the problem. Eliminate that 20% by shutting down Art’s Auto’s shady operation! It is no secret there is illegal activity occurring there on a regular basis.
Sammy, you nailed it. They brought them there, they should deal with the people that in actuality don’t really want to be helped. The “problem children” are chronic alcoholics that could “give a rip” about their behavior. This type of person just won’t be overlooked in Sioux Falls. Nor should it. Some people just don’t want to be helped, no matter how many resources are allocated to help them. Is it really our duty to help those that refuse to not get fall down drunk on a daily basis? If you are fine with allocating city resources (aka, spending the money) towards those people then fine, pay the higher taxes.