City leader’s priorities, once again, screwy

300_77141

You would think after the mayor had to kick a transient out of Minerva’s last week that city leaders would understand that by spending money on public safety up front you save taxpayer’s money in the long run? Nope.

Councilor Pat Costello asked why the city should be involved if that funding will take care of most of the project.

In 2008, the Project Safe Home pilot program offered permanent housing to 20 individuals. The county operates Dakota House on North Minnesota Avenue, which is being used for the project.

The project cut annual homeless services costs in half – from $32,000 per person to provide health care, detoxification, other county services and to jail homeless people who ran afoul of the law, to $16,260 per person for pilot program participants.

See, when our Councilors talk about living in a ‘Blessed Community’ they are talking about the one they envision, and it doesn’t include helping the homeless, because as far as they are concerned, they do not exist.

Councilor Greg Jamison said his constituents tell him they support helping homeless families instead and told Brown he would need to be convinced the center could help those families.

Huh? Because only homeless people who reproduce are important? They are ALL important. Greg is starting to sound like his old man on this issue. Like I said, this is about more then helping people, it is about public safety. Or maybe Mayor Munson enjoys getting punched by homeless people? Funny how they won’t blink an eye for $170,000 crappers at McKennan Park or Million dollar windows at the Pavilion, but when it is time to spend money on public safety, it turns into some huge f’ing pissing match.  Guess what, it is okay to spend tax payer money on public safety. Especially when it proves to save us money in the long run and keep us more safe.

They really are dumber then I thought.



2 comments ↓

#1 redhatterb on 04.21.09 at 6:58 pm

I always was against the new windows for the Pavilion. If they are operating in the black they should be able to figure out how to pay for them, themselves, providing they are a necessity. But then on the other hand I was never in favor of the Pavilion. I thought the old Washington High could have been put to better use.

#2 l3wis on 04.22.09 at 6:24 am

First off, I just finished watching the informational meeting about this. It seems everyone was pretty much on board except Costello and Jamison. Costello debated it in terms of $$$, but he is wrong. Building this shelter actually SAVES us money and protects us. Not to sound to ineffectual but it’s kinda like comparing it to Animal Control. I suppose we could let strays run around spreading disease and biting people, but it doesn’t make sense. I suppose we could continue to let homeless alcholics wander our streets and engaging in criminal activities, or we could do something about it. Which option makes sense?

Jamison doesn’t think it is right ‘to help these kind of people’. He is EXTREMELY out of touch with reality when it comes to this. It is about PUBLIC SAFETY first. Period. Does not matter who the homeless people are.

As for the Washington Pavilion. I have always said we should have done this;

– Restore the coliseum for performance hall
– Expand the Carnegie for a Visual Arts Center
– Convert Washington HS into joint county and city offices

We would have saved taxpayers millions of dollars and got great facilities.

Leave a Comment