Public Watchdog.org

The Socratic Method: One PADS “Answer” Raises More PADS Questions

10.17.08

The Socratic Method of instruction is based on the principle that every answer gives rise to yet another question.  So it seems to be with the proposed PADS homeless shelter issue.

If the City of Park Ridge does choose to offer the Public Works Service Center (“PWSC”) on Busse Hwy. as a “compromise” site for the PADS homeless shelter that was being proposed for St. Paul of the Cross’s gymnasium – an alternative that reportedly will be discussed at the City Council meeting this coming Monday night – the question that still needs to be asked is whether the “PADS model” of homeless shelter is the best this community can do to combat homelessness.

We believe the answer to that question is: “Not based on what we’ve seen from that model or that organization so far.”

First of all, the “PADS model” should be unsatisfactory, if not outright offensive, to any community that truly cares about the homeless and wants to actually try to solve the homelessness problem.  That’s because the “PADS model” is not designed to help the homeless build ties to a particular community they might eventually call “home” but, instead, is based on “hot potato” theory: Shuffling the hot potato from one hand to another so as not to get burned.

But instead of being shuffled from hand to hand, these homeless get shuffled on a daily basis from community to community – from a church basement in Schaumburg to a school gymnasium in Arlington Heights, then to another church basement in Des Plaines, and so on.  Forming ties to any one particular community is thereby effectively discouraged and impeded.

The primary “achievement” of the “PADS model” ends up being nothing more than helping the homeless make it to yet another day of being homeless and on the street – while at the same time helping PADS to Hope, Inc. (“PADS Inc.”) maintain and grow its list of “clients” that it can use to leverage more funding from both the government and the private sector.  In the context of that second dubious “achievement,” doing something that reduces the number of homeless is actually counter-productive for PADS Inc., in much the same way finding a cure for high blood pressure would be counter-productive to the revenue stream of those drug companies that sell blood pressure medication.

A cot in a school gym or a church basement is, in many respects, less of a “home” than a car or a tent.  That’s why seemingly successful homeless organizations like www.pathwaystohousing.org operate on the simple but sound principle that “only housing cures homelessness”: Even an alcoholic, drug abuser or mentally ill person, if housed in an apartment or other stable residence, is no longer “homeless.”

So if solving anybody’s homelessness problem is really a goal of our community, then that goal needs to be taken seriously; and achieving it needs to be treated like a full-time job rather than as some temporary feel-good hobby.

Second, PADS Inc. is at the very least being disingenuous in fostering the impression that its completely secular traveling road show is some kind of religious “ministry.” Just because the people in groups like the Park Ridge Ministerial Association (“PRMA”) say it’s a “ministry” doesn’t make it so.  And those PADS supporters who view bringing a PADS shelter to Park Ridge as some kind of litmus test of one’s Christianity might do well to ask themselves: Would Jesus Christ give you a help-the-homeless high-five for providing nothing more than a bunch of cots in a school gym or similar holding area one night a week from October through April? 

While we’re on the topic of honesty, we also wonder why PADS Inc. pulled even its outdated financials from its website soon after the PRU Crew, PublicWatchdog and their readers started questioning (a) why a full one-third of PADS Inc.’s annual revenues appeared to be coming from federal and state government; (b) why PADS Inc.’s two highest-paid employees (Beth Nabors and Pat Harrington) pulled down more than 21% of PADS Inc’s 2006 total revenue PADS Inc. Form 999 [pdf]; and (c) how PADS Inc. could spend so much money for such seemingly modest results?

Third, we wonder whether the main reason for PADS Inc.’s interest in coming to Park Ridge is because its operators want a piece of our “market” for fundraising purposes.  Obviously, it’s a lot easier for them to come to our City Council or to our local business and social organizations with hat in hand and an outstretched palm when they actually have a presence here.  Heck, the PADS shelter isn’t even open for business yet but St. Paul of the Cross is already advertising the PADS lawn care service in its Sunday bulletin. 

In light of these questions and concerns, if our City Council offers the PWSC to PADS Inc. as a shelter site, the citizens of Park Ridge deserve the City Council’s adoption of the zoning ordinance text amendment in the form recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission; and the adoption of a requirement in the “special use” permit process that shelter operators like PADS Inc. be co-applicants for any special use permit.

If this community is going to embrace as half-hearted an approach to homelessness as the “PADS model,” the least our City government can do is try to make PADS Inc. – and any other shelter operator who might want to set up shop in our community – as accountable as possible for the results of its operations.

12 comments so far

A few questions about this issue – Does our city government give the mayor the power to unilaterally decide how the public buildings are used? Is he allowed to use our tax dollars for his pet projects? Is anyone concerned about potential liability?

A12:25,

No, that’s why the Mayor gets his alderpuppets to rubber stamp his plans.

I am very concerned about potential liability if the plan is to, pardon the expression, move forward with this idea under the guise of some shell of a partnership.

The City has guidelines covering groups who wish to use the Public Works meeting rooms for their gatherings; you can find the guidelines on the City web site at:

http://www.parkridge.us/residents/city-forms.asp

Toward the middle of the page.

This is a victory for all the people who aren’t being represented by the mayor and most of the aldermen. I’m really surprised the shelter at SPC was stopped, especially because of all the lobbying Morello and the PRMA did. But as somebody on one of the blogs said, Frimark must be feeling the heat on this.

Reflecting on what I am hearing from loads of people and seeing here and on PRU, the Mayor has certainly opened himself up to quite a few questions.

Who wants to bet he shows up Monday night completely unprepared to talk about any of the details of his “compromise” or any plans he may have crafted?

If the majority of the 7 aldermen simply roll over and give this to King Howard and the PRMA they will have turned their back on the community.

As many are saying, all Frimark has done is proposed a change in the location of a possible temporary overnight shelter in Park Ridge. All of the other issues remain…
> 500 feet
> co-applicancy
> # of shelters allowed
> # of nights allowed per week / per season
> etc., etc.

And if Buzz opines and let’s Frimark or Swoboda sign that crappy PADS linkage agreement he and they are goofier than I thought. That agreement is a giant stinking piece of crap and the city has no business entering into it.

Frimark is being as stupid as Pastors Calamity Carrubba and Morello were in making surprise announcement to their constituents. Nice behind the scenes job Howard, your loyal subjects will love you for this. NOT.
Can you possibly think this solves the problem(s)?? You gotta get some better advisors. Geez.

Alpha Female — nice link to the Public Works meeting room guidelines!!!! I noticed that the meeting room holds 80 people!

Pretty slick political move by Frimark (or, more likely, whoever is Frimark’s political brain, because Frimark’s not smart enough to come up with this on his own), PADS and the PRMA.

By the way, does anybody know why the stuff for Monday night’s City Council meeting doesn’t include the minutes of the last (Oct. 6) continued COW meeting re PADS? The comments of the aldermen are the important stuff, but none are to be found. Is that just negligence, or intentional concealment?

In looking over PADS’s 2006 tax form, there’s a “Lee Larson” listed as a director. Does anybody know if he/she is any relation to Rev. Stephen Larson, the pastor at St. Luke’s and a leading PADS advocate? That might at least explain part of why the PRMA has such a hard case of PADS.

that sounds plausible, I wouldn’t be surprised at anything that prma gang did. They’re like lice. I don’t even want to go to church in Pr anymore.

Don’t give up going to church in Park Ridge. Better to work towards getting rid of the clergy who are dividing their congregations and this community.

Folks, what you need to look at is the big scarey picture.

Although I don’t believe that anyone would argue, as a location, the PW center is a good one. No schools no close residents. However, location was/is not the ONLY thing we have been concerned about.

How about the fact that we are not so crazy about the Pads program as a whole, and that we believe that they should shoulder the bulk of the regulations and hold the license.

When the PRMA tried to shield PADS from this process I at leaset understood why. I didn’t agree, but I understood.

Now the city is trying to do the same thing. Shield Pads from this entire process. Why on this earth would we as a city try to sheild a program, agency, or business from being required to get a license to operate?!?!?

I believe I already know the answer to that but I’d love to hear what anyone else has to say.

When 2 PADS employees get paid more than 20% of its revenues, it becomes a lot clearer why a PADS shelter in Park Ridge is so important. Do Nabors and Harrington have “golden parachutes” (or at least “silver” ones) if/when they move on from PADS to another gig?

This is not over – the recommended restrictions must be kept in place – Please eeryone come to the meeting to simply ask for the P&Z recommendations to be kept – why? Because if Frimark’s proposed using the PW building doesn’t stay the only one they don’t have any other sites do they so they will look once again to schools and churchs – NO DOUBT!

This is not over. And now it’s direct at taxpayers at a taxpayers building

And this isnt’ a PADS issue – this is a shelter operator issue. PADS is not a gimme either.

Get up and speak – simple statements, polite, direct.



Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(optional and not displayed)