Tonight we drove down Crescent and over to Ellyn Ct. to look at a house for sale. On our way, we noticed an unusual number of homeless people congregating along Park St. I remembered that there was a PADS event, and this was confirmed by what we saw as we drove around on Anthony St. Most of the PADS guests seemed to be coming from the train station.
It was a beautiful night and there were small kids playing nearby. A few residents were working on their lawns. When I saw first-hand how a virtual parade of homeless people (many who were OBVIOUSLY high or drunk) were arriving in droves in such a close proximity to the small kids my heart sank. I have to believe this is affecting the property values of the homeowners. And to those who would challenge me on that point, I'll ask you to sit down and watch this event the next time they host PADS in that location. But not for 5 minutes like I did.....stay for the duration and see what you think.
One group of men were sharing a bottle of 'something' out of a brown bag. A few others were smoking in front of someones house, and I couldn't help wonder where they ended up throwing all those cigarette butts.
In my opinion this situation crosses the line between good intentions and BAD COMMON SENSE.
I applaud the volunteers who work at PADS, and the people who put the program together in the first place. They want to end homelessness and that is a noble cause. However, after seeing the impact on an otherwise safe and somewhat bucolic neighborhood, I disagree with their approach.
There has got to be a better way to go about this. Is it so wrong to expect that when you move out of the city to provide a safe, clean environment for your kids you would not have people changing their shirt on your front lawn? (Yep, saw that too.) I don't have the answer, but I have to believe we can help those who are less fortunate without creating an such a burden on this neighborhood and our already struggling CBD.
This (what I saw tonight) is not a solution, but more of a "band aid" approach, perhaps stemming more from guilt and less from logic. I would like to know if the people who run PADS are willing to host this gathering at their own homes, or at least on their own front lawns. If not, we really ought to think about renting space on Roosevelt Road, or somewhere that would be less affected by the comings and goings of these individuals and the challenges that go along with inviting them into neighborhoods of single-family homes, filled with little kids.
I'm sure the parents of the young children really appreciated all the questions that their little ones asked regarding all the people walking on the sidewalk.
Very well written, I saw this also. Apparently the PADS operation is oblivious to the rights of property owners.
Agreed. Well written.
Re: PADS - they're not oblivous... they just don't care
Very true. With the operating/funding model that PADS operates under... there is absolutely no need (or care) for the neighbors and communities that they invade. As long as PADS HQ can show that they are at max capacity - they get their funding and donations (whether their people take the train in from downtown - where they are required to pay a daily fee to stay in the downtown shelters that is more than the $5 traing ticket to GE -, or if they really are from DuPage Cty).
It's always a nice night when you have family in town for dinner and have to close up your doors and windows because a guy and his bags are camped out on my driveway waiting for the church to open. Of course... this is where the PADS volunteer logs in and says we don't undestand the societal impact of homelessness and that we are morally obligated to helping.
Why can the police come to my house and break up a party that is disturbing the neighbors, yet they do nothing about the PADS patrons when they disturb the same neighbors?
I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me.
Why can the GE police ticket residents for putting their garbage out before 4 PM on Sundays, yet do nothing about PADS patrons willfully violating loitering, littering and smoking laws (including smoking at the churches)?
Re: PADS - they're not oblivous... they just don't care
They care, they want it in your face. In PADS world, we are obligated to help the homeless because "housing is a right". Forget that we work and earn money for that "right", those that choose not to work are still entitled to housing. As I posted in another thread, why don't those who are concerned for the welfare of the homeless "adopt" them and take them into their own home?
For those who have criticized PADS, I think there is a lot of validity to your comments. But what of the churches? Aren't their congregations primarily local residents? Don't they care what impact their church's activities are having on their neighbors?
Am I the only person who feels a little twinge when I learn someone is a member of one of the PADS churches - thinking "Your church should not impose external costs upon the community while pursuing its programs."
Some of the posters here attend the churches in question. What do you think of contributing to and supporting an institution that imposes such costs upon the community while ostensibly helping others? Is this issue discussed within the churches?
Sort of unrelated, but we went through that house on Saturday. Very cool inside. Completely unrealistic if you have small kids. Could use some paint to cover up some very owner-particular tastes...but a neat house nonetheless. Too bad so small upstairs.
You had what a call an eye-opening situation. We've all had them. Mine was when I saw a dozen men hanging out at the park on Prospect and Penn last year...most shirtless in the sun...most drinking out of a bottle swathed in a paper bag. It was that summer day that I realized something was amiss. And then there was that pooping guy behind the Banyan Tree "Mall." That was a bit of surprise.
Originally posted by Clamato: CLE: You had what a call an eye-opening situation. We've all had them. Mine was when I saw a dozen men hanging out at the park on Prospect and Penn last year...most shirtless in the sun...most drinking out of a bottle swathed in a paper bag. It was that summer day that I realized something was amiss. And then there was that pooping guy behind the Banyan Tree "Mall." That was a bit of surprise.
Someone had mentioned building a picnic pavilion or shelter over at Lake Ellyn. At first this seemed like a good idea, until I walked around Adams Park in Wheaton. (Main St. Wheaton & Seminary) Just east of the Wheaton public shelter Library. It has several shelters and gazebos. All of them were being used by homeless as Clam described above. Almost every bench was doubling a a bed. I recognized some of the people as Glen Ellyn regulars. If I can't enjoy or use the parks, Library or public spaces can I get the taxes paid toward them removed from my bill?!
I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me.
Originally posted by GEM: Someone had mentioned building a picnic pavilion or shelter over at Lake Ellyn. At first this seemed like a good idea, ...
You can already see them enjoying the little park and bandshell next to the Prairie Path on the days before PADS. I'm sure they would appreciate - and use - larger and more plush facilities.
If the folks with "GESafety.com" were to solicit feedback on one great thing they could provide, it's the following:
Print flyers, posters, business cards or some sort of guidance (maybe some chatchki) that can be distributed at PADS shelters, provided to the coffee shops and other business, and also to the library that provides instruction and direction to the "Civic Center" on Duane. The PADS folks should be asked/directed that this building is their hangout center/cooling center from now on... until the doors of the churchs are opened.
This situation is complex. Clamato hit the nail on the head earlier with his "one law for all" post. One amazing summer evening last year I departed the train earlier than usual. Walking past Praire Path park, I noticed a couple, late 40s/early 50s, that appeared to be washing up near the fountain. She had on a, um, let's call it a halter top and shorts. He was wearing only shorts. They did not to appear to have worked out in a long, long time. The vision was, to a reasonable person, not pleasurable or appropriate for our town.
I continued the walk down the Praire Path to Main Street. There, on the bench, stretching and waiting for traffic to clear, was a young couple in their late 20s/early 30s. She was wearing a sports bra, shoes and shorts, he had on running shorts and shoes. Both were tanned and those kind of folks one loves to hate for being in such good shape. It hit me that these situations are like the Wrigley Field bleachers...one can't control who choses to disrobe.
Sometimes, for example, adult Glen Ellynites have been known to trick or treat for beer or wine when their young-ins get candy. This seems innocently intentioned and acceptable until one wonders about consistency and ticketing the brown-baggers.
There is an answer, but it is not going to be easy.
I think your comparisons are a complete joke, are you seriously comparing joggers to bums bathing in a fountain and drinking a beer while your kids trick or treat to vagrants spending the only $ they have on alcohol and then drinking it in public?
Maybe you were being sarcastic and I didn't get it. Please enlighten me.
I don't view his post as a joke. I think it points out that under the law, there's a fine line. If I decided to wear a sports bra and shorts to walk through town (which I will not, thank you very much), should I get ticketed for indecent exposure or some such violation? If not, then why should the two described in 4MP's example? Or, if we want, we could have a law forbidding public bathing - which is the primary difference between the two folks 4MP describes (other than the fact that one couple was fat while the other was fit and one likely had on less appealing clothes while the other likely had on more appealing clothes). Where do we draw the line? That's all I think he was trying to point out.
"The most valuable things in life are not measured in monetary terms. The really important things are not houses and lands, stocks and bonds, automobiles and real state, but friendships, trust, confidence, empathy, mercy, love and faith. " -Bertrand Russell V. Delong
Posts: 3214 | Location: Glen Ellyn, IL | Registered: April 04, 2003
How about we use some F'ing common sense in this F'ing town before one of our children or other residents is permanently harmed by these sacks of sh!t.
I'm sorry for the language, but some people just don't get it.
Originally posted by Amy: I don't view his post as a joke. I think it points out that under the law, there's a fine line. If I decided to wear a sports bra and shorts to walk through town (which I will not, thank you very much), should I get ticketed for indecent exposure or some such violation? If not, then why should the two described in 4MP's example? Or, if we want, we could have a law forbidding public bathing - which is the primary difference between the two folks 4MP describes (other than the fact that one couple was fat while the other was fit and one likely had on less appealing clothes while the other likely had on more appealing clothes). Where do we draw the line? That's all I think he was trying to point out.
Ignoring the fact that one are residents of our town and the others are not, I think David St. Hubbins was pointing out the fact that skinny people, who are attractive and fit, should be encouraged to walk around scantily clad..for the benefit of all...those who are fat and not fit, should not be encouraged to bare their assets....and, in fact, should be arrested and prosecuted for doing so.
What's so hard to figure out about that? And who can take issue with that?
