The gist is that non-profits are putting money into building what are basically no-frilles apartments for the homeless. They are estimating 559 people without home at night and are shooting for 600 housing units. A smaller scale program is already in use in tulsa and claims only 20% return to the street.
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070617_1_A1_spanc56725
Thoughts?
I glanced over that but need to read the details, on the surface is seems like a good solution to the problem. Hopefully, it is a SOLUTION and not a band aid - getting the people the addiction and mental help they need, job skills, and other assistance so they can stand on their own two feet. The investment upfront should pay off for the community in the long run.
I've been noticing a lot more homeless downtown now that the weather is nice. Well, I guess I really do not know if they are homeless - but more vagrants floating around spare changing people anyway.
No matter what is done, there will always be a percentage that either want to live on the streets or do not want to conform to the programs trying to get them off. No long term benefit will come providing that minority with a free ride for life.
I tried to mail some money to the homeless, but didn't have a good address.
This would solve that problem.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I tried to mail some money to the homeless, but didn't have a good address.
This would solve that problem.
Just drop off donations at the local Spirits shop.
A guy with missing teeth, frazzled hair, and blue lips asked me for change a few minutes ago for a bus token.
How about those houses come with free bus passes too so they can't use that excuse?
I really needed the tokens...you didn't like my blue chapstick?
Whatever happens, they better not pick up all that homeless folk junk under that overpass on the BA near the IDL. That looks way better than the nice rock work they did under there.
[:D]
I know of a place under a bridge over the BA that practically looks like an efficiency apartment. You can't see it from the highway -- the only view is if you lean over from the bridge and look. Whoever lives there has a bed, blankets, plastic storage tubs, everything he needs I guess, including privacy (except when dorks like me walk across the bridge and gawk). Would he prefer to be placed in housing or stay under the bridge? Who knows.
I guess the apartments could be for those who didn't nab the primo locations under the bridges and overpasses.
Kitty needs this one for her portfolio so on future campaign literature it can say, "founded housing program for homeless" no matter what happens next, which is likely nothing.
When news of this gets out, there'll be 600 more to take their place. Then, a perpetual flow as long as they keep building housing.
This isn't a solution, it's a problem.
In fact, it sounds so hokie that it almost seems a planted distraction, so I'm waiting for the other shoe.
Seattle is working on the same basic thing. Except without any strings attached. They are building free housing for the lost causes who will be able to continue living for free and not working while continuing their panhandling and drinking for life with free medical care.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-housing-alcoholics,0,3097991.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
Basic argument - its costing more money to deal with them on the street and in ERs so lets just suck up and give them a place to live.
How about we stop treating them and let them die? Rewarding drug addiction or drunkenness coupled with laziness and other problems with a free drunken stooper and room and board for life does NOT sound like a good idea. Not too mention, where ever the "apartment" is built will certainly see HUGE declines in property values. A halfway house is bad enough, but an 'all the way' house I would not want ot be anywhere near.
Before everyone calls me a heartless jerk, I understand there are some people with REAL problems. Many are mental issues (though it is often hard to tell if a homeless person has mental problems or are just so drunk it seems like it). Helping people is good, enabling is not.
As someone who worked for years at the Mental Hell Association in Tulsa with the homeless mentally ill this is right up my alley.
The problem with these plans are that even with proper wraparound services, the net result will be to reinforce failed zoning guidelines which allow multi-family units to be mixed in with single family housing units. It is my contention that rental units in marginal areas are the single greatest impediment to regentrification. A renter with a 30-day lease on a neighborhood has little in common with someone who has a fifteen to thirty year commitment to the neighborhood.
Priority should go to severe and persistently mentally ill whose families are Tulsans. I can site many examples where people just ended up as a Tulsan, sucked the system dry, and then just moved on. I believe 100% of our homeless are mentally ill. Why would one choose to be homeless in Tulsa, when one could be in Florida or San Diego and have much nicer digs?
Anyway, these programs tend to attract the higher functioning, more stable clients, less system-resistant. The problem is that non-compliant folk will be refused services or get kicked out and stay/end up on the streets anyway. Problem not solved. All we have done is reinforced a failed policy of de-institutionalizion.
I might've missed it but did any information give the location for this housing?
I'm assuming it will be within walking/bumming distance of the churches serving free food in the morning.
Change? Cigarette? "My car is out of gas and I just need a couple of bucks to make it to my next drink...I mean destination."
$27,000,000 for 600 unhomed is $45,000 per.
A bus ticket to Florida couldn't be more than $1,000, even if we throw in a couple of Happy Meals for the trip and an overnight at the intermediate Motel-6, and they'd be much happier.
That's before the taxpayer cost of "surrounding them with services".
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
I might've missed it but did any information give the location for this housing?
All over town, typically the 8-12 unit buildings built in the 70's during the housing crunch, out-of-date but not too far gone to be too costly to renovate from studs. Think close to the the TU ghetto by Lewis.
It seems to me it is an attempt to try and "manage" the homeless problem not eliminate it which is impossible. Kudos for Tulsa acknowledging a problem and trying to lessen its impact on a major investment downtown. Heaven forbid we take a perspective of cost/benefit analyses.
My feeling is that if we were to daily round up all these undesirables and transport them South of 51st to those pristine neighborhoods in Jenks, BA & Bixby, near the mega churches, this solution would already have been proposed.
I agree with one thing you said CF. Enabling is not the answer. So we better stop Trinity, First Baptist and the other downtown churches from doing so. Yeh, you sound heartless. Beggars prisons? Stockades? Law school?
I am not funding the churches that chose to encourage bums to live downtown, so I have very little say in that matter. Of course, there is a big sign at the zoo that tells you not to feed nuisance birds - seems similar to me.
Furthermore, there is a difference between enabling and compassion. I feel sorry for many of those people , but at the same time I am appalled by the thought of rewarding their behavior with exactly what they want: a free place to sit and get drunk. As Daddy said, many are mentally ill and need treatment - not a place to sit and get drunk(er).
and again, it will not solve the problem. There will still be mentally unstable people walking around looking like crap peeing on doorstops and drunkenly telling me they just got out of prison and need money for a bus ride to wherever.
I hope the plan works. I hope it both helps the homeless people and cleans up downtown - but I (clearly) have my doubts. Many a city better than Tulsa has tried to solve this problem and failed. The only tried and true method is to send the problem down the road...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The only tried and true method is to send the problem down the road...
Bus ticket therapy may be appropriate for non-Tulsans, but is out of line for Tulsan families who are affected by a loved one with a serious and persistent mental illness.
I understand Tim, it is not a compassionate thing to do to anyone that truly needs help. Especially if they have family that can lend support. I just get frustrated with this issue as a certain percent is 'down on their luck' because of their own failures and rewarding or enabling continued degradation of the areas they inhabit is annoying.
With you 100% on that CF. Means-testing, filtering out malingerers needs to be addressed. The issue of attracting non-Tulsans is of critical importance, we should not be in the business of providing mental health care for all of OK just because we want a more safe downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The gist is that non-profits are putting money into building what are basically no-frilles apartments for the homeless. They are estimating 559 people without home at night and are shooting for 600 housing units. A smaller scale program is already in use in tulsa and claims only 20% return to the street.
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070617_1_A1_spanc56725
Thoughts?
Is she going to put any of these houses in her neighborhood?
Are they going to provide houses for the thousands of other bums who will decided to come here in hopes of being provided housing with no strings attached?
^^All good thoughts on the issue CF & TH.
It sounds a little too much like a social experiment to me, and I too have serious concern about this attracting more people for no-strings housing. How do you decide who winds up there and who doesn't? For every person who gets off the street there is at least one more to take his/her place. I mean do we just keep building more units?
These numbers at the bottom of the article were somewhat odd:
"Chronic homeless: 559 a night, 4,100 a year Residents in subsidized housing: 20,000 People with income insufficient for a 2-bedroom apartment: 130,000 Substandard housing units: 8,241, with about 1,795 of those too dilapidated for rehabilitation."
I'm trying to figure out how they arrived at one third of Tulsa's population cannot afford a two bedroom apartment? Are they counting kids earning minimum wage sacking groceries and living w/ their parents? That number sounds pretty skewed.
Section 8 will pay for a 3 bedroom house in Tulsa up to $850. I would surmise that a 2 bedroom apartment is something less, lets pretend $725 (we all know you can spend more, or less than that in Tulsa).
Most people spend about 30% of their income on housing. So to afford a 2 bedroom apartment with 30% of your income you need to make $29,000 a year. Ignoring the fact that section 8 pay for the housing for them if they could not truly afford it, that tax rebates for that income bracket actually ADD to income, and pretending that there is only one working member of the family - that person would have to earn $14.50 an hour working a full time job to afford the apartment at 30%.
I can understand that would be a challenge for an uneducated single mother trying to take care of two children (thus needing a 2 bedroom). But I have trouble believing that one third of all people in Tulsa are single uneducated mothers earning less than $14.50 an hour. In fact, I call BS.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
In fact, I call BS.
Good call
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070622_1_A7_hTheY77372%22)
quote:
As part of a plan to provide housing to Tulsa's chronically homeless, the YMCA is working with a city task force to transition its downtown residents into permanent housing.
The YMCA has not announced a closing date for its downtown residency program, but it will occur before 2010, said Laura Hailey-Butler, the director of development.
YMCA officials have been participating on a mayor's Task Force to End Chronic Homelessness, which has endorsed the Building Tulsa, Building Lives program.
The Zarrow Families Foundation initiated the program last year out of concern for downtown's homeless population with the 2008 BOK Center opening and other improvements to the area.
The program would provide a basic housing unit to each chronically homeless person and then surround that person with support services to work on personal issues. Housing would be provided with no strings attached.
"Until the task force plan is in place, we will continue to provide services to the men who need it," Hailey-Butler said. "Our biggest
concern is that there not be a knee-jerk reaction and fear that we are closing soon. If someone needs housing, they can still come to us.
"We are making sure each person will be transitioned into other housing. We will not leave anyone without a home. We will not add to the homeless population."
The 52-year-old downtown YMCA, 515 S. Denver Ave., has 168 housing units. About 140 men, many of whom have been homeless or trapped in a cycle of chronic homeless- ness, now live there.
Fire regulations that go into effect in 2010 would require the YMCA to invest heavily in renovations if it were to continue housing people.
The YMCA has no plans for the use of the residential side of the building, and no offers to buy the property have been made, Hailey-Butler said. However, the YMCA does plan to retain a downtown presence and will continue its health, family and youth programs.
"Since the downtown YMCA was built 50 years ago, there has been a complete change in the housing market," Hailey-Butler said. "We have donors who remember staying there as young couples until they got a job to afford a house. That's not what we are seeing now."
YMCAs across the nation have been ending their hous ing programs to focus on family and youth programs.
The Tulsa YMCA is building a facility at Pine Street and Peoria Avenue that will include a child-care center, health and wellness area, swimming pool and gym.
The Zarrow Families Foundation has provided funding for a full-time caseworker at the YMCA to locate housing options for the residents.
The Mental Health Association in Tulsa has been leasing a floor at the YMCA building to provide 25 units in its Safe Haven housing program.
Executive Director Mike Brose said the association is looking for other housing options, adding that "the closing provides the community an opportunity.
"That opportunity means finding ways to replace those units with housing that is not overly congregated -- more scattered sites and that will work much better and be more appropriate for individuals who stay there," he said.
The Zarrow Foundation asked the Mental Health Association and Tulsa Housing Authority's nonprofit Housing Partners of Tulsa to be partners in the program. The foundation has provided funding to staff the initiative.
Tulsa has about 600 chronically homeless people, not counting those who will be moved out of the YMCA, Brose said.
So which is it? There needs to be a new place for the Safe Haven folk or we need to clean up downtown? The more I hear and see that Brose is the lead the more I distrust and dislike the initiative out of hand.
Towit, how is this going to clean up downtown anyway? Are these semi-mentally ill folk going to be under house arrest? The problem has always been for dually diagnosed folk is that they have nothing to do and will still roam around downtown.
The third problem is that besides cherry-picking clientele, the previously mentioned problem of serving non-Tulsans will continue to suck valuable resources from native T-Towners.
The so-called mental health system has been flailing about for forty years trying to deal with deinstitutionalization and still cannot get it right.
Spare some change?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3f/PressImg.jpg)
i think bums are just a part of downtown....just nothing you can do about them....there will always be career bums. the people that are homeless because of bad luck will find a way to pick themselves up. Tulsa has good facilities for those types. The rest are just grifters that a Colt 45 could solve and I don't mean the beverage.
If people would quit directly giving them money they would then have to go to a charity organization to get food or shelter. That food or shelter should never be free, even a small chore should be required before or after, if they don't do it after then there must be some consequence when they come back.
I would like to hear more about this program. It says "no strings attached housing" but there has to be rules, they can't tear up the place. They also mention that they will be "surrounded by services" I assume people will be checking in on the home, will they have to have psych examinations to see if they need meds or counseling? Many mental problems can result from poor diet, lack of omega 3 oils can result in depression and cause the brain to not funcion properly in several ways etc. Will there be diet counselors to make sure they are eating properly or taking meds etc.?
What does "no strings attached" really mean? If a person isn't getting better they will get worse. Nothing, or no one, just sits still and doesn't change.
I saw a video on the homeless problem in tulsa on YouTube- "Children having children, Down by the river". Never realized how bad crime and homeless people are in tulsa. My friend and I recently took a drive downtown and it is scary at night. When we go to OKC we can walk all around downtown, bricktown, midtown, chinatown...basically all the urbanized parts. We have major problems here in tulsa. The 2025 vision is really designed to keep companies like AAirlines and not towards tourism and exciting projects like OKC. OKC has pumped a Billion into their school system, so we are even falling behind OKC in education. I think OKC has shadowed my town. Everyone is moving to Jenks and surrounding subs. I cant believe we like to poke fun of OKC. Our population is even decreasing.
quote:
Originally posted by Renaissance
I saw a video on the homeless problem in tulsa on YouTube- "Children having children, Down by the river". Never realized how bad crime and homeless people are in tulsa. My friend and I recently took a drive downtown and it is scary at night. When we go to OKC we can walk all around downtown, bricktown, midtown, chinatown...basically all the urbanized parts. We have major problems here in tulsa. The 2025 vision is really designed to keep companies like AAirlines and not towards tourism and exciting projects like OKC. OKC has pumped a Billion into their school system, so we are even falling behind OKC in education. I think OKC has shadowed my town. Everyone is moving to Jenks and surrounding subs. I cant believe we like to poke fun of OKC. Our population is even decreasing.
I will start the onslaught. What is keeping you here? What keeps all of us from moving to OKC where we can roam the streets at night and party fearlessly? You can't answer with "a job" because obviously OKC has them too. Family is no excuse, its only 1hr 45 min away. Schooling? Go to OU, OCU, or a host of others.
What then? I suspect that like most of us, you stay because there is some difference in the people, the geography, the general ambiance of the place that feels better. The same reason people stay in Boston even though the roads are bad and the Big Dig is a fiasco. Or Minneapolis in spite of the high taxes and horrid winters.
We are not on the same path as OKC. We are optimistic that the money invested in 2025, the river and downtown will yield a better city that won't forever be compared with the flat, windy state capitol. In my mind it is this choice: lead, follow or move out of the way. All three of the choices are personal and no one would blame me if I packed up and left for OKC.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Renaissance
I saw a video on the homeless problem in tulsa on YouTube- "Children having children, Down by the river". Never realized how bad crime and homeless people are in tulsa. My friend and I recently took a drive downtown and it is scary at night. When we go to OKC we can walk all around downtown, bricktown, midtown, chinatown...basically all the urbanized parts. We have major problems here in tulsa. The 2025 vision is really designed to keep companies like AAirlines and not towards tourism and exciting projects like OKC. OKC has pumped a Billion into their school system, so we are even falling behind OKC in education. I think OKC has shadowed my town. Everyone is moving to Jenks and surrounding subs. I cant believe we like to poke fun of OKC. Our population is even decreasing.
I will start the onslaught. What is keeping you here? What keeps all of us from moving to OKC where we can roam the streets at night and party fearlessly? You can't answer with "a job" because obviously OKC has them too. Family is no excuse, its only 1hr 45 min away. Schooling? Go to OU, OCU, or a host of others.
What then? I suspect that like most of us, you stay because there is some difference in the people, the geography, the general ambiance of the place that feels better. The same reason people stay in Boston even though the roads are bad and the Big Dig is a fiasco. Or Minneapolis in spite of the high taxes and horrid winters.
We are not on the same path as OKC. We are optimistic that the money invested in 2025, the river and downtown will yield a better city that won't forever be compared with the flat, windy state capitol. In my mind it is this choice: lead, follow or move out of the way. All three of the choices are personal and no one would blame me if I packed up and left for OKC.
Here's the thing. Tulsa-and not just for me, but with others too- seems to be the kind of city that one leaves after a while of being there for a great length of time, that it's a city one actually has to
want to visit or live there.
Another city has an interesting approach to homelessness: Provide them with an area away from the public.
http://www.sbsun.com/ci_6337292
quote:
City opens a new area for homeless
Will Bigham, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 07/10/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT
ONTARIO - An outdoor living space for the city's homeless population opened last week in an isolated, untraveled area of vacant lots more than 500 feet from any other structure.
It was set up by the city at minimal cost to address the growing encampment of homeless people near the city's Amtrak station at Euclid Avenue and Holt Boulevard, said Bob Heitzman, the city's assistant city manager.
"We could have just said, `Move on to somewhere else,"' Heitzman said. "In this case, we said move on and gave them another location to go to."
The new site, with a city-provided portable toilet and running water, has become the new home for about 20 homeless people since opening on Friday.
"It's not illegal to be homeless, and it's not illegal to be in town," Mayor Paul Leon said. "They have expressed a desire for some kind of accommodations that would fit their wishes to have a place where they can be and not be imposed upon.
"We don't have any other place that we could set up and say, `Here's a spot.' But that's a spot that we could do that with at this time."
The homeless encampment near the Amtrak station was established about six months ago at the city's urging, said Rick Ritchey,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40, one of the homeless people who moved from the station to the new site.
About 30 people were living there when police came on Friday, told the homeless people about the new living space and said "in a roundabout way" that they had to leave the Amtrak site, said Rod Vaughn, one of the homeless people.
"They wanted us out of sight and out of mind, which we didn't mind," said Ritchey, who has been homeless off and on for 10 years.
The living space is at Cucamonga Avenue and Jefferson Street, in an area just west of L.A./Ontario International Airport that was formerly a residential area.
The city purchased the residential lots from owners through a voluntary program established after the airport opened, Heitzman said.
The area encompasses several full blocks, and in recent years people have used it as an illegal dumping site. The area is peppered with large "no dumping" signs.
Homeless people at the site say they like the new living space. It is now filled with bags, suitcases, tents, mattresses and other camping equipment.
The noise from planes passing overhead and nearby trains is bearable, they say, better than the previous spot right next to the train tracks.
There are trees that provide shade, and the city laid woodchips down over the site, which is roughly the size of two residential lots.
The city installed four trash cans and two picnic tables, and because the site was set up by the city, the homeless people say they are no longer bothered by the police.
"At least the city is recognizing us," Ritchey says. "The city of Ontario doesn't have transients, it has a homeless population."
Volunteers from aid groups that serve food to the city's homeless had mixed feelings about the new living area - many commended the city for attempting to help the homeless, but questioned the appropriateness of the site's location and wondered whether the city considered it a permanent fix.
"What is the city going to do with those people?" said Borsay Bryant, a Chino Hills resident and volunteer from Calvary Chapel Golden Springs in Diamond Bar. "Are they going to keep moving them from place to place, or are they going to find a suitable place for them?"
Peter Briring, a staff attorney with the Southern California chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union who has done extensive work on homelessness, said he was not aware of another city that has set up a similar outdoor encampment for the homeless.
"That may be better than harassing and arresting homeless people, but that's not a long-term solution to homelessness," he said. "It's not going to get those people off the streets.
"Experience shows that the best way to get homeless people stabilized is to provide them supportive housing - housing with services that address the issues they may have: mental health counseling, drug and alcohol counseling."
Or - we could buy FEMA trailers left over from Hurricane Katrina, set them up where Bell's used to be and call it done.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17509045/
Or, use the left over government building when the city moves out and have them all live there.
I can't believe no one has suggested Bum Fights. It would help us fill our new super arena when it opens while boosting the economy AND controlling the bum population. Well, it would probably work about as well as any solution FEMA could implement.
/yes I know where I'm going straight to
Disclaimer: cannon_fodder, his persona, Tulsa Now, nor decent human beings actually suppor the idea of Bum Fights. No matter how amusing or profitable.
I must not be a decent human being then.
Someone call Dale Cook and get him to train them.
They want to put the center downtown!!!! Makes no sense. If they keep them downtown then how will they develop downtown. I am soooo pissed off right now!!!!! Read the article below.
Project to house chronically homeless receives grant
By Staff Reports
7/12/2007 3:13 PM
A project to permanently house Tulsa's chronically homeless has been awarded its first government grant to build the initial phase.
A $2 million grant from the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services has been given to Housing Partners of Tulsa, the nonprofit arm of the Tulsa Housing Authority.
The grant will be used to start construction on a living and service center for about 60 people. The facility will be a hub for the project.
A location is still being sought downtown.
The project, called "Building Tulsa, Building Lives," was prompted by concerns from the Zarrow Families Foundation that chronically homeless people are not receiving appropriate services and will be forgotten during the revitalization of downtown.
Downtown has no organized constituents to vote against this plan. I understand your concern and I agree that downtown will be branded. But, where would you suggest they build this housing?
Oklahoma City. It is the capitol after all...
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Oklahoma City. It is the capitol after all...
Yes...so simple it plum evaded me! Can we get someone to sponsor the free bus rides to the capitol? Liquor them up and then drop them off near the Bricktown with signs. Brilliant! But lets think bigger. Dallas?
How about Broken Arrow or maybe South Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
But lets think bigger. Dallas?
Mexico?
Mexico would look at that as illegal immigration...they are against illegal immigration.
How about we build an island in the middle of the Arkansas river?
Nah...it would never work.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
How about we build an island in the middle of the Arkansas river?
Nah...it would never work.
I dunno. I think there's plenty of people that would vote for that if they weren't allowed off the island, which is a scary thought and poor reflection on our city. Then again, it's hard to dispute those that argue our generosity and benevolence in regards to homelessness has made Tulsa the San Francisco of the mid west in regards to attracting homeless populations. There's a fine line between charity and co-dependent enabling, where to draw that line is a perplexing question that is far beyond me.
If only there was a vacant building near other city services. Somewhere around the YMCA, the courthouse, and the library. Probably wouldnt hurt to be near a strong police presence either. It doesnt really need to be a top notch building, even a run down building that isnt good enough for other government purposes would probably do.
Think, think...
Or better yet. Lets find an area that has the most potential for development and put it there to make sure no area gets ahead of the others.
OR - drop it near an oil refinery. If you want free room and board you may as well have a view.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If only there was a vacant building near other city services. Somewhere around the YMCA, the courthouse, and the library. Probably wouldnt hurt to be near a strong police presence either. It doesnt really need to be a top notch building, even a run down building that isnt good enough for other government purposes would probably do.
Think, think...
Or better yet. Lets find an area that has the most potential for development and put it there to make sure no area gets ahead of the others.
OR - drop it near an oil refinery. If you want free room and board you may as well have a view.
I like where you are going with this, tell me more.
I heard a rumor that the city is going to have some downtown space to rent in the near future, maybe they could rent a floor out to a homeless mission.
I was wondering what neighborhoods they are thinking of putting the housing?
John 3:16 sent flyers to the Brady Heights asking them to consider a new homeless shelter in an apartment building that is for sale. They will probably get to do whatever they want too - this could really hurt the efforts to revitalize a historic neighborhood.
quote:
Originally posted by mac
I was wondering what neighborhoods they are thinking of putting the housing?
Somewhere around 29th and Columbia I hope!
I had a good source tell me it is going in on the north-east corner of 11th and Utica, and that Councilor Barnes is none-too-pleased.