Last week, we laid out the case that the pricing structure for the soon-to-be-opened Greensboro Aquatic Center systematically excludes those who are truly poor. That is unfortunate, but true. The Melderec con Simkins crowd threw a bone-- swimming lessons-- to make it appear that the facility will be serving the poor; but of course that turned out to be merely a token effort, a gesture for PR effect.
For many years, area homeless have not always had a place to shower and take care of their personal hygiene needs. The city has an abundance of parks and recreation facilities, and also all the facilities at the Coliseum; but has not provided such assistance for the homeless. We learned online over the years about how the homeless used to use the central library for hygiene needs, although of course there are no showers at that facility.
Recently, the Interactive Resource Center (IRC) opened, but it is located a bit east of downtown. My understanding is that it offers showers. That facility represents, however, only one location for the entire city.
The aquatic center will doubtless have very nice, extensive facilities for showering. It occurred to me that city staff could identify one hour out of the day that the aquatic center is least busy with users; and make it available to the homeless during that hour.
I expect that the facility's predominantly upper-middle-class-to-upper-class clientele would not have any objections to this idea.
Oh, I know some might come up with a litany of excuses why it cannot be made to work. But if city staff is determined, this plan can be entirely workable.
In any case, I think this proposal would give the homeless more choices with respect to where to go; and more geographic coverage and flexibility. Some homeless might potentially be in closer proximity to the aquatic center than to the IRC Washington Street location.
The main thing, of course, is that the facility would truly be serving the poor. Systematically. Every day.
Because it would not be doing so otherwise.
Joe, that is not what you said. Read the QUOTE. But I am actually cool with lowering prices across the board too as long as you and your minions stop howling about profit and loss numbers. I will remember your insistance on lowering prices when the P&Ls start coming out. I hope you will too. I dont understand why you think the homeless and people w/o water will not congregate or hang out at the pool. They would. So....
Stormy I think the bond money is still 12 million.
But, Yup cud chewing ... a three year old opinion piece.
Did you happen to read the responses? Probably not.
Steve,
First, we will just have to disagree on the prices being too high and Joe's point is only valid if you believe $3 to swim is too high. I dont and wont. If we were all paying attention I had and have lots of problems with P&R not being involved (at least in the programming). Mostly have and still do and for some of the very reasons you have brought up. We will see how it goes. There is work to do and logistics and communications to work out between the GAC, competitive use and Rec use and others. There will be many groups and individuals using the pools at all times. This is kind of the point and the purpose of the multi use pool. I've seen it plenty at other facilities around the state. It takes work, cooperation and communication. To be clear, I have long been a supporter of the rec swimmer. But arent the people taking classes, using the therapy pools or in programs, etc tax payers and citizens too? I would think so for the most part. As is usual some will be county types (another thread). I know not all the kids will be Gso residents on the various swim teams that will practice there regularly but they pay rent (big rent). I remain concerned about "open swim" (which is what you appear to be concerned with too) being reasonable and convenient (time wise). I would love to see them have an extended open swim time in the big pool at least once a week. It was Wednesday nights way back when I was kid in Kokomo, In. And yes I think $1, $2, $3 and $5 is reasonable for use of the facility. See, we dont necessarily disagree on everything concerning the facility. I am more human and less elitist progressive pig snob than Joe and others would like to have you think. I have actually voted against many bonds over rhe years and have only very rarely voted for any other than an R. Surprise. I did and still do take great exception to Joe's earlier remarks. That's not changing. There is no excuse for what he said in either post. Nor do I believe for a second he gives a crap about P&R or GAC prices. But that's just me and wouldnt mind being wrong. But I really dont give a crap.
Night all
No really
Unless you say my name three times and spin
Posted by: Mick | August 19, 2011 at 06:02 PM
"I wasn't speaking to you, Bob."
Yes you were.
I belong to the congregation in question, and I will be participating tomorrow night
Posted by: bubba | August 19, 2011 at 06:50 PM
Yes, we have Sunday School classes that prepare and serve meals at Urban Ministry, etc. It's been a long while since I have done it, but I appreciate the fact that you are doing so, Bubba.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 19, 2011 at 06:58 PM
Then my apologies to you as well, Bob.
Posted by: David Hoggard | August 20, 2011 at 08:35 AM
Fred pointed me to this post. Here are my thoughts:
The City has provided more than "some" assistance to the IRC. The center has received substantial City funding, which allowed it to open and remain open.
Homeless people have lived at Hagan Stone Park for years, and as far as I know, they still do.
The meals that are served at the downtown library do not cause homeless people to congregate. Multiple organizations serve meals there because the homeless are
already congregated at the library.
Members of Joe and Bubba's church (which is also my "home" church) serve and give to the homeless in many ways. I would love to see Lawndale become a winter shelter location.
I support Joe's idea of allowing homeless people to bathe for free at the aquatic center and any other appropriate city facility.
Posted by: michele | August 20, 2011 at 03:29 PM
P.S. The Greensboro Public Library recently received national recognition for its efforts to serve the homeless, including a free meal provided by Food Not Bombs that is served inside the library as part of its Winter Series program. The library began its efforts to assist the homeless because of the high numbers of homeless people who utilize services at the library. Kudos to them!
Posted by: michele | August 20, 2011 at 03:42 PM
It has been my understanding that the IRC is primarily funded by taxpayers. I was recently scolded by the center's director when I questioned the IRC's association with various anti-government, anarchist individuals and organizations. In my opinion, it gives the impression of "biting the hand that feeds you".
Posted by: michele | August 20, 2011 at 03:56 PM
Michele, I might be wrong about this; but my impression was that the city provided the IRC a significant amount of capital/start-up funding. Long-term operational funding, however, might be another matter. I think it might be more on its own with respect to operational funds. But please feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.
Food Not Bombs is also a very questionable organization even though it is engaged in a well-intended activity that assists the homeless.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 20, 2011 at 05:24 PM
I agree with you about FNB. Our StreetWatch ministry stopped partnering with them a while ago because of philosophical and ideological differences
The IRC recently received another $60,000 from Council. Trudy Wade was the lone "no" vote. I'm not sure that they've yet secured adequate long-term operational funding.
Posted by: michele | August 20, 2011 at 06:14 PM
Thanks, Michele.
I assume everyone understands that the IRC is not part of a governmental agency. It is a private entity; and it is founded with some worthy goals-- to provide a day center to support the homeless, and also to help them turn around their lives.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 20, 2011 at 10:55 PM
Worthy, indeed. And their list of services continues to grow. They're filling in a lot of "gaps" in local homeless services. Among their more notable efforts are helping homeless people get jobs, housing and medical, psychiatric and substance abuse treatment. My hope is that they will develop significant private sources of funding that will ensure their ability to continue the many vital homeless services they provide and to continue adding new programs and opportunities for their guests.
Should you decide to speak before Council regarding your idea to provide showers for the homeless at the Aquatic Center, please let me know. I'd be happy to join you in your efforts. I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this issue. ;)
Posted by: michele | August 20, 2011 at 11:39 PM
Michele, you know more than most people about the geographic distribution of the homeless, and where they tend to stay and "hang out". Are any in reasonably close proximity to the Coliseum complex?
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 21, 2011 at 07:47 AM
Yes, definitely. There are half a dozen (probably many more) homeless camps in that general vicinity. The Aquatic Center would certainly be more convenient for them. And there are some homeless people who wouldn't go to the IRC just because of how many people are there. I'm thinking specifically about veterans with trauma issues and those with serious mental health issues that make it difficult for them to be in crowds. I would assume that bathrooms at the Aquatic Center would be less crowded, at least at some times. And the IRC likely has less showers than the Aquatic Center.
Actually, there are homeless people living outside all over our city. Perhaps there are other City-owned facilities that could provide bathrooms and showers for the homeless, as well. This is a really good idea that you've come up with.
Accountability would be key to exercising the privilege of showering at the Aquatic Center. See my latest post: http://chosenfast.com/2011/08/21/ending-homelessness-through-accountability-and-without-government-funding/
Posted by: michele | August 21, 2011 at 08:30 AM
Michele, I had suspected that some homeless might not necessarily be likely to go to the IRC frequently for various reasons. Some might just want to get clean, to feel human again.
But your comments about the convenience factor, and where the homeless tend to cluster, make it much more compelling to use the aquatic center for this purpose. If we know the homeless are in close proximity to the facility, we can hardly justify preventing them from using it.
But I like very much the principle of accountability that you introduce.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 21, 2011 at 01:15 PM
"But I like very much the principle of accountability that you introduce."
Accountability works both ways.
How do we hold accountable the Usual Suspects who command influence in our Politically Virtuous City to do their part in making the Aquatic Center's facilities available for usage, as discussed above?
Posted by: bubba | August 21, 2011 at 04:29 PM
Bubba, as I stated earlier in the thread, city staff can make this happen. If city staff wants this to happen, they probably have the wherewithal to do so.
But if it becomes necessary to contact council members about this matter because of staff inaction, I think it would be appropriate to start with those who voted in favor of the aquatic center-- because they voted in favor of a facility that, for all practical purposes, excludes the poor. Those council members are Robbie Perkins, Nancy Vaughan, Zack Matheny, T. Dianne Bellamy-Small and Jim Kee. It seems that it is their responsibility to assure that the problem is fixed, and that the homeless are given access to the facility free of charge.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | August 21, 2011 at 05:33 PM