You need to be aware of this news, and then check out this opinion.
It will be a sad day for MLK and Chattanooga politics once this project reaches fruition because there is very little you or I can do to stop it. The lines have already been drawn and the majority of the City Council doesn't care because it's not in their Districts. If this agenda was pushed onto Brainerd or Hixson, the whole city would be up in arms, shouting "Not in my backyard." But as it stands, no one has come to MLK's rescue. They are our neighbors and deserve a stronger vote in the process. I spend a great deal of time in MLK and as far as I'm concerned, it is my backyard.Ron Littlefield is going down in history as Chattanooga's Worst Mayor Ever. And this disaster of a project will only add to that legacy, while it tears down a great up-and-coming neighborhood. That is, unless we can figure out a way to stop it. Does anyone have any ideas?
At the center of this issue lies Ron Littlefield's self-proclaimed "legacy project" - a narcissistic desire to paint himself as the great mayor with a heart of gold. It's no secret that the Farmer's Market campus is his pet project. This is intended to be his one great contribution to the Chattanooga narrative.
3 comments:
Alice,
i'm no fan of RL - voted for Coulter in fact... But, I'm curious to know how this project tears down an up-and-coming neighborhood. Do you mean that literally (are they condemning homes for eminent domain?), figuratively in the sense of bringing undesireables into the neighborhood, or figuratively in some other sense?
Taking the location out of the equation - do you disagree with the idea that a centralized umbrella organization able to provide all of the services needed to homeless people will be more effective aid to them? If you agree with the idea of having such a centralized service but just disagree with the location - what location would you support?
But, I'm curious to know how this project tears down an up-and-coming neighborhood. Do you mean that literally (are they condemning homes for eminent domain?), figuratively in the sense of bringing undesireables into the neighborhood, or figuratively in some other sense?
I mean that by creating a one-stop homeless center for services, the homeless will become concentrated in that one area (and could actually increase in number), taking a neighborhood that has been making a lot of progress lately and plunging it back into a struggle to maintain order.
Taking the location out of the equation - do you disagree with the idea that a centralized umbrella organization able to provide all of the services needed to homeless people will be more effective aid to them? If you agree with the idea of having such a centralized service but just disagree with the location - what location would you support?
Instead of sinking an incredible amount of money into building a huge homeless services center, I'd like to see us take that money and spend it on helping the homeless. I don't think a centralized location for all services is necessarily a good thing, although it will accomplish one of Littlefield's goals, which is to move the homeless "problem" out of our city's center and into a less visible part of downtown.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that a centralized center for homeless services has some advantages in terms of providing better assistance. It can be regrettable for the nearby communities, but it doesn't have to be all burden, all the time. If, once the deal is done & the facility is there, the community chooses to embrace it - to look at it as an opportunity to serve the homeless community without having to leave their own neighborhood, it could have positives for both those needing the assistance and for the cohesiveness of the host community.
Post a Comment