Comments on: Neighbors: Make changes at homeless shelter

By: Onlythetruth24

Onlythetruth24 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:50:30 +0000

Our Redeemers abandoned the church where the SHARE homeless are living now. Pastor Grumm moved his congregation to the 85th/24th location. THOSE are the people that voted that this abandoned church was a great place for these homeless. They don't have to deal with these issues so, of course, it was a great idea! Ask Pastor Grumm next time you make a visit to the new Our Redeemers and make sure you ask him what arrangement he has made, and who is monitoring the abandoned church/shelter now?? BTW, he was not able to answer any of the questions at our meetings. He kept stalling and hiding behind the loud church goers who defended the actions. As for they person asking about the Wallingford location and finding a lawyer, it seems that no one wants to touch this issue. Good luck though. Again, if the churches really want to do anything worthwhile, they should educate these people to work and become independant, like the rest of us.

By: Name

Name — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:26:35 +0000

"Neighbors said they want to hear back from SHARE and Our Redeemers by October 8th, but both said that date was too early to come to an agreement on a new entry screening protocol."

WHY exactly is October 8th "too early to come to an agreement?" More than a month has passed since the Level 3 sex offender/child rapist issue. Why should this drag on any further?

Our Redeemers tried ignoring the valid concerns of the neighbors when they first extended an invitation to SHARE to move into the vacant building without running sex offender checks. SHARE failed miserably and I don't for one second believe it was by accident. The only responsible thing for Our Redeemers to do is to tell SHARE that if they wish to continue using the vacant building they have to run sex offender checks. Period.

There is nothing at all complicated about this. If Our Redeemers demanded they run those checks or move, SHARE could begin running them immediately, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN RUNNING THEM SINCE 2004 AT THEIR TENT CITY 4 LOCATIONS. Upon checking into the shelter, a prospective resident would provide a form of i.d. and the person in charge would use the cell phone they have on location and call the King County Sheriff's office with the name which would then immediately be checked in the sex offender data base FOR FREE.
The only people making this complicated are the leaders at Our Redeemer who are trying to sweep this under the carpet and SHARE.

By: Name

Name — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:12:05 +0000

Isn't in interesting that O.R. (and the local church synod) turned down an offer to rent or buy the Calvary property – from a local immigrant community church (that currently shares space at St. Lukes in downtown Ballard). So instead of having a neighbor that holds services on Sundays and meetings during the week – we instead get a completely different set of issues (and problems) to deal with. What was the problem with the church offer, Our Redeemer, that they were African, or Pentecostal? Or don't you want the competition?

By: hayduke1

hayduke1 — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:55:03 +0000

So now SHARE is foisting Nicklesville a 5 minute walk from my home here in wallingford. I wonder if the church they’re coming to bothered to ask it’s neighbors what they think about a bunch of unscreened individuals coming into where they live with their families. Or do they even give a damn. People should BOYCOTT that church. And are there any lawyers out there who know if the current host property of Nicklesville has any legal liability for the actions of it’s squatters, and for that matter, SHARE for inflicting this BS on unsuspecting neighborhoods. If there’s any liablity, the neighborhood should band together and sue the pants off of them. That will discourage future Nicklesvilles.
And someone please tell me why we can’t house these guys in spartan, concrete, military-style barracks in the industrial areas of the city? The facilities could have 3 hots and a cot, and hot showers so (gasp) they could wash themselves so they don’t offend the rest of us with their stench. If it’s good enough for our troops, it’s good enough for them.
It’s bad enough to have to deal with them making us miss the light at the offramp so they can scrape together more money for 40’s. And I know we’re all supposed to wear our hearts on our sleeves for the bums and tolerate all their disgusting abuses of civilized behavior. But this is a positive for Wallingford how?
People have the right to be homeless. But they don’t have the right to make the rest of us suffer for it.

By: Ballardmom

Ballardmom — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:33:03 +0000

I love the internet!

Here is the commercial I was talking about for Union Gospel Mission:
http://www.compass-om.com/homeless/camp_bandaid...

By: Ballardmom

Ballardmom — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:30:31 +0000

"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll buy a funny hat. Talk to a hungry man about fish, and you're a consultant."

Sorry - couldn't resist!

Seriously though - I agree. Homeless is a complex problem, different for each individual. But giving hand-outs is not a solution. Helping people overcome the problems that caused the problem (read: homelessness) is the solution and SHARE seems not very concerned about actually creating a solution.

I saw a commercial once for Union Gospel Mission (I saw it once and never saw it again which is a bummer because it was a powerful message). It showed a man sitting on the street corner with a sign asking for money, and people kept walking up and putting little tiny band-aids on him. Then they showed the shelter and said something like "Stop treating the symptoms, look for help for the real problem. Union Gospel Mission doesn't just put a band-aid on the issue, we strive for real growth and change". I know that's not the wording of what they said, but that is the gist of it.

By: Onlythetruth24

Onlythetruth24 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:30:27 +0000

I cannot believe that people are shocked about this. The neighbors around Our Redeemer's abandoned Church went to the meetings and voiced their concerns, only to be told we should just give them a chance. They also said that the other homeless people were the ones that screen the other homeless. How can that person be fired from SHARE staff if that is the case? This should not be happening in a close neighborhood with Childcare businesses and schools close by. That area is already saturated with the Food Bank, the soup kitchen, and 3 other SHARE homeless projects within a few blocks. The new Ballard! Go get em and bring them over, in the name of the churches. Why don't they educate the homeless and get them jobs? What ever happened to “Give them a fish and they will eat for a night; teach them to fish and they will eat for a life time”? Yes, there are the special circumstances in certain homeless victims but for the majority of them, quit giving away so many handouts and bleeding heart charities and educate them to do it on their own!

By: Bark more, Wag Less

Bark more, Wag Less — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:36:03 +0000

Really? So we can't challenge churches? Mars Church? Jerry Falwell's old church?

By: balishag

balishag — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:16:40 +0000

I'm unsure why you suggest that I should have to go to church to be interested in my child's safety. I'm also unsure why a church would choose philanthropy for the poor in lieu of safety for their children. If you are interested in helping the innocent, it seems entirely unproductive. I wonder how far these parishioners drive to to Holy Redeemer each week to cast their vote.

By: Bum Crisis 2009

Bum Crisis 2009 — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:07:51 +0000

I remember reading a lot about the opposition to this shelter and it wasn’t only about the sex offender issue. Seems like this motel/business doesn’t belong in a residential neighborhood.

By: kim

kim — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:06:05 +0000

take the church thing out of it. insert any charitable organization. now make you statement again.

By: y not

y not — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 18:44:54 +0000

I love when someone tells me how to run my church.

Tell me kim, what church do you belong to?

I have some ideas for you and your parishioners....what do you say?

yeah, let's wait until a big holiday, too so all the chreasters come out of the woodwork. great idea.

By: Bark more, Wag Less

Bark more, Wag Less — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:24:13 +0000

“That way we'd know who they were and everyone would be happy. Right?”

No, that way Our REdeemers can see if they have enough insurance to run a Level 3 sex offender home in the middle of a residential neighborhood, near parks and schools. Something tells me the parishioners might be a little less open to that idea…

By: kim

kim — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:29:09 +0000

our redeemer's has a huge responsibility in this and now's the time for their parishioners to come forward. they need to take a stand and get simple majority of their congregation to get a real picture of how the congregants feel about this. how about on christmas eve? or easter? when everyone is there. to late though for this situation.

By: kim

kim — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:26:20 +0000

sounds like tent city 4 needs to check for sex offenders!

it's a slimy, spineless organization that has no place in residential neighborhoods.

By: ballardrocksnow

ballardrocksnow — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:07:23 +0000

SHARE is simply a parasite that has absorbed the values of its users. Losing no funding during this time of duress, SHARE's hostile tactics last week revealed the terroristic intent of the organization -to take from society whatever and whenever they can. And when they don't get a raise, they intimidate like a bully.

They are unwilling to work for anything less than $10/hr. Not a crime, but considering they are HOMELESS, one should wonder what they are doing with their spare time that is worth more than $10/hr. I question the character of these sponges after learning SHARE kicks out anyone who does not partake in their “Direct Actions”.

By: xaphaeod

xaphaeod — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:31:08 +0000

Who could have possibly imagined such a thing – that a fine, honest organization like SHARE that values input from residents of the neighborhoods they invade – could have somehow missed a bad guy? What a shock!

By: y not

y not — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 06:27:42 +0000

Yeah, screen them first to see if they're sex offenders.

Then, LET THEM STAY, as if they bought the place.

That way we'd know who they were and everyone would be happy. Right?

By: Name

Name — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:51:12 +0000

I will state this once again, SHARE has been running sex offend checks and outstanding warrant checks since 2004 at their Tent City 4 location. THE CHECKS ARE RUN FOR FREE BY THE KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AS PART OF AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE SINCE 2004. SHARE simply checks in a potential new resident, verifies i.d. and places the call to the King County Sheriff's office who then immediately run the name.
If SHARE is running them and has been at their Tent City 4, then there is absolutely no reason to delay any further running them here in Ballard.
The powers that be should be ashamed of themselves for playing russian roulette with this neighborhood.

By: Bark more, Wag Less

Bark more, Wag Less — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:20:43 +0000

"Corrections was supposed to notify them whenever a sex offender registered with an address that matched a shelter. But a neighbor said she spoke with DOC and discovered the process only works when sex offenders notify the DOC that their new residence is a homeless shelter, as they’re required to do."

A loop hole SHARE knows is big enough to drive a truck full of child rapists through.

“new screening protocol”

There's already one available, it's online and the food bank has offered to pay for it.