Find us on Facebook
Follow us on TwitterDanville City Council approves funding for House of Hope
Danville City Council approved a Community Block Development Grant for the House of Home homeless shelter at Tuesday’s regular meeting — but not without objections from two members of council.
Fred Shanks said he still feels House of Hope’s search committee “circumvented” City Code to get approval to move into its new Ridge Street location, and claimed it received favorable treatment from city officials who “clearly supported” the group.
Shanks also said House of Hope officials asked for the opportunity to prove its worth, and suggested that the city should not allocate any funds to the shelter until they had proved themselves for at least a year.
Council member David Luther also opposed the funding, saying at least one city official had been on House of Hope’s board of directors and a member of the search committee, a situation he called a “conflict of interest.”
Other members of City Council disagreed, including Larry Campbell, who noted that city officials on the board left when House of Hope applied for CBDG funds, because that would have caused a conflict of interest.
Campbell said House of Hope followed the rules to get into its new location.
“The process in which it was done met City Codes,” Campbell said.
Council member Adam Tomer said the issue now is not about whether House of Hope should have been allowed to locate on Ridge Street, but whether their application for CBDG funds should be approved.
“The code was in place that allowed it (House of Hope’s location),” Tomer said. “It’s over.”
Tomer also said refusing the group the funding would only punish the homeless, not the people who made the decision to locate the shelter downtown.
“The people who need the homeless shelter are the ones who will feel the sting, not the board,” Tomer said.
Council member Buddy Rawley said he recently spent a night at the shelter, signing in like the homeless have to and going to the police department for a background check.
Rawley admitted he was nervous, but said he learned many of the men staying at the shelter are out-of-work laborers who are waiting for work. He also said two women were using the shelter’s facilities the night he was there.
“I was with them and talked with them,” Rawley said. “The clientele was better than you’d ever think.”
Shanks and Luther voted against the proposal; all other members of City Council approved it.
Now the issue will go before the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which disburses CBDG funds. It will hold a public hearing before giving final approval for the funding, Dianne Morris, Danville’s director of Housing and Development, said.
Morris said HUD’s final decision on whether to award House of Hope the funding will take six to eight weeks.
In other business handled during the City Council meeting:
• Members listened to residents of Ross Street, the site of a recent homicide and repeated shootings. They asked for increased safety measures, including additional police patrols, camera surveillance and removal or renovation of blighted properties. Residents said they are living in fear. Council members said they had received many calls about the issue, and Mayor Sherman Saunders said he knows the police department is working on the problems. Saunders also asked Deputy City Manager Joe King to let City Council know if more police resources are needed to take care of the problem.
• City Council unanimously approved a resolution to support a project to bring an American Municipal Power plant to the Berry Hill mega-park. The joint city and Pittsylvania County project would be named “Southern Virginia Energy Park,” and the AMP plant would fill up the southwestern portion of the park if the deal is finalized.
• Contact Thibodeau at or (434) 791-7985.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
People keep saying that we do not need a homeless shelter near our children or our senior citizens. First, we need to understand that a homeless person does not equal a danger to society. We need to rid ourselves of stereotypes and realize that we’re dealing with real human beings with real needs.
Secondly, the free clinic and social services is already right there near the school and the senior citizens’ facility. This not only provides an ideal place for our homeless citizens to rest their bodies and use the services for people in their financial situations, but it also begs the question: how does the homeless shelter cause a problem? “Those people,“ as our homeless are commonly referred to, are already there using these facilities that are geared toward people of their income level or less. The homeless shelter is not adding any new clientele to the neighborhood.
Finally, Galileo moved to the area at a time when the neighborhood was already such as it is, if not in worse condition. The school made the decision to move into the neighborhood as it already was, so it is simply unfair to say that institutions such as the homeless shelter don’t fit and are unsafe for our children. The neighborhood was the way it is now well before the school moved there. It was the school’s decision to move there; so if anyone is putting our children in harm’s way, it is our school system, not the homeless shelter. This also brings up an interesting question: why, when the former homeless shelter opened its doors many years ago, did no one protest its location? It was just around the corner from Woodrow Wilson Elementary School. These children are much younger than Galileo’s high school students, so one would think that there would be much more resistance to a homeless shelter being put so close to such a school. I have my thoughts as to why this is.
Finally, “thinkrationally” said that there should have been a meeting before the city planning commission for the former photography studio to become a hotel/motel. What some people don’t understand is that the House of Hope needed no special use permits or friendships of “certain people in high positions downtown” to make this happen. That area was and is already zoned for hotel/motel use. It’s written into the Danville City law, so nothing or no one was circumvented to make the shelter legal. People are upset that the homeless shelter opened up under the definition of “hotel/motel.“ But I ask: what other definition should they have used? They are bound by the written law of our city to function as something that is already defined. Our Danville City law has no provisions for a homeless shelter - no definition for it. Hotel/motel was the closest definition that existed for the shelter. I might add that now that the City Council has closed this “loophole” in the definition, excluding homeless shelters from the “hotel/motel” definition, there is no way another homeless shelter can open in our city until they come up with a definition. I understand their need to close the loophole, but maybe they should have written a definition of a homeless shelter into their law before closing this loophole. Now no other homeless shelter has any hope of opening until a definition is written. How long will that take?
Shanks and Luther have my vote. We do NOT need a bum shelter near a school and senior citizens. Afterall why are WE paying for this anyway? As usual Adam is back to whimp mode and is afraid to stand up. Get off your knees Adam! You were almost man-like when dealing with the dog/police situation. I thought you were showing improvement until now.
I do not think anyone in this city disagrees with the need for a shelter. The location, however, bordering a school and a senior citizen complex, is one the most asinine things I have ever heard. I did not realize just how asinine until I drove down to take a look myself.
Then, there is the fact that the former photography studio became a hotel/motel overnight! Imagine that! Not even a meeting before the city planning commission! No need for a special use permit, no need for a rezoning request! For some strange reason, certain people in high positions downtown (who happened to be on the shelter board) felt that that was not necessary. That decision was wrong. Anyone who has ever had to prepare and present a request for anything before the planning commission should be a bit miffed at this special treatment. The shelter was allowed to place outdoor temporary showers in the parking lot (yes enclosed in a semi, but where else has this ever been allowed or even heard of?) That, too, I had to see for myself because I just couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Again, no special use permit, etc. etc. etc.
A good part of the controversy surrounding the homeless shelter has its basis in the fact that once again, backdoor, good old boy politics continue to have an impact on decision making in this city. I was beginning to think that those days were gone. Conflicts of interest do abound. I am glad the shelter received the money, though I would have liked to have seen the North Main shelter receive it. I have, however, lost faith and respect for a number of people in City Hall.
As far as Mr. Shanks’ criticism of the shelter, I saw the online recording of the meeting held at the high school several months back. He encouraged people to support the shelter. It sounds to me that he is just upset at the same issues everyone in the city should be upset about; the fact that in Danville, it is still about who you know. Thanks, Mr. Shanks, for standing up for what you believe, as unpopular as that stand might be.
I’m sure Mr. Shanks is disappointed that the funding went through for the House of Hope. He has fought the House of Hope from it’s inception in the downtown area. Kudos to Mr. Rawley for taking the time and seeing what the shelter is about. Thanks to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tomer for seeing through the smokescreen that because a city official served on the Board, was a ‘conflict of interest.‘ I hope the citizens of Danville will remember Mr. Shanks continuous criticism of the Shelter at election time.
I agree with Wanda. Buddy Rawley took a huge step with his night at the shelter. I know that is something I won’t do.
I commend Buddy Rawley for taking the steps that he did concerning the shelter, afterall, these are people that are looking for shelter, not animals. Mr Rawley, this is the kind of support that fellow voters need during tough economic times. You will be blessed.
Advertisement