House of Hope draws heat from City Council members

A request for a $25,000 Community Development Block Grant by the House of Hope homeless shelter sparked some heated debate during a Danville City Council work session Tuesday. A second work session to discuss the outstanding issues will be held at a later date.

New Feature

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter e-mailed to your computer at 8 a.m. Monday through Friday.

Click here

“Currently, the board of directors of the House of Hope is expending a significant portion of our available funds for the items identified as necessary achieve code compliance and a certificate of occupancy,” the board said in a June 5 letter to City Manager Lyle Lacy. “We are seeking a contribution of Community Development Block Grant funds from the city to assist with the renovations of the space which will allow us to preserve current funds for operating expenses.”

Jerry Fischer, director of Community Development, told council the request fits the program’s guidelines.

Asked if there was precedent to supply such funding to a homeless shelter, Fischer said Cindy Hill, who operated the original homeless shelter on Claiborne Street, had not been interested in applying for the funds, but could have qualified under continuum of care guidelines designed for homeless shelters.

Members of council who have been vocal opponents of House of Hope’s new downtown location asked for more information.

David Luther asked why it was so important for the House of Hope to be located downtown.

“There’s nothing we can do to undo it, but I’ve never seen anything go through so fast and with as much stealth,” Luther said, referring to the speed with which House of Hope’s permits were obtained. “We can’t stop it, but I hope it never happens again.”

Luther also noted that speaking out against the location has resulted in negative reactions from people who accuse him of being against the homeless, though he said is not against the shelter — he is only questioning a location that could conflict with city efforts to attract economic development projects to the area.

Fred Shanks was very outspoken about his opposition to the location, and said he had about 60 questions he wanted answered before considering approval of any funding for the organization.

“It’s not about what, it’s about where and why,” Shanks said, adding that he felt there had been some “back room” dealings to get permitting through so quickly. He also questioned whether House of Hope met with any of its neighbors before moving into its location in the basement of the old Compson Studios.

Cook said the board met with Sue Davis, superintendent of Danville Public Schools, before signing the lease for the location. He said they got her list of issues before signing the paperwork, and met with her again once they had formulated procedures that would address the issues she brought up.

The shelter is currently operating with a temporary occupancy permit, and must have its official certificate of occupancy in place before the end of August.

Shanks asked how many bedrooms there are for guests, and Cook said there are five, three set up for families and two bunk rooms. Shanks pointed out that this is against code, which requires there be six bedrooms for a business to be defined as a hotel or motel — a designation that allowed House of Hope to locate downtown.

Asked about how potential guests were screened, Cook said all have to get the police department to run a search for outstanding warrants, and that the shelter director checks the National Sex Offender Registry to make sure the applicant is not on the list.

Luther said it appears that procedure is not always followed, because he had heard a woman recently was admitted after being asked only if she was a mental patient.

“She said no and that was that,” Luther said. “That was the extent of the check before she was told she could stay.”

Asked about the number of applicants rejected, Cook said that of the roughly 60 people who have stayed at the shelter since January and only three had been turned away — and one other was expelled after being admitted for not wanted to abide by the rules.

Cook said he was unaware of any arrests of people turned away, noting that he had no way of knowing what happens to people “not under our care.”

Councilman Larry Campbell said he could see both sides of the issue, but that he personally supports House of Hope and its location.

Shanks, Luther and Councilwomen Ruby Archie — who said she wanted all questions answered — objected to having the proposal moved to the next regular council meeting agenda. Deputy City Manager Joe King suggested holding another work session before the request moves forward, and members agreed to the suggestion.

On Wednesday, Shanks said he is not against the shelter and feels it is an “important ministry and a noble cause.”

However, he continues to question the location, and its definition as a hotel/motel under city code.

“In a nutshell, this whole issue, from the city government perspective, got out of whack by falsely equating a homeless shelter with the definition of a hotel or motel,” Shanks said. “I’d like to help them find a more suitable location.”

Cook said Wednesday that they are now aware they need to add another bedroom to their plan.

“This location affords flexible housing,” Cook said, noting that adding another bedroom will not be a problem.