Monday, November 19, 2018

Pay to not play

Providing some shelter and resources for people without stable housing is generally supported here.  But  that means just as long as those services are not nearby. To date, four proposed sites have been tabled by neighborhood objections.

How about neighborhoods paying to NOT have emergency shelter, housing, services, nearby?

Neighborhoods could compete - the ones that pay the least get the shelters; the proceeds from others who pay to not have services nearby fund and operate the resources.

Inequity at its finest - but gee, it would raise money, locate sites by an agreed-upon method, and objecting neighbors could put up their dollars without nixing much-needed resources.  I can hear the cries and objections, but bottom line, it could work.

Because, like it or not, money gives one power and influence to help get things done.  And choosing a service site needs to get done.

No comments:

Post a Comment