A new women’s homeless shelter that successfully opened on Jan. 26 at a Palo Alto church abruptly closed on Thursday after the city delayed issuing a temporary use permit at another church in response to College Terrace residents’ concerns.
The delay had volunteers for the Stanford-organized Heart and Home Collaborative shelter scrambling to find somewhere for about 12 women to stay ahead of the late Thursday night and Friday storms. The women were eventually relocated to a hotel last night, Heart and Home Board Director Vickie Boone said.
On Friday morning, Feb. 28, city officials finally approved the permit. The shelter will open at University Lutheran Church tonight through April 7.
Controversy over the shelter’s opening sparked discussions at a public meeting on Thursday evening about stereotyping homeless people as well as the responsibility of the church and homeless advocates to be forthcoming about their plans and the nature of fear.
The discussion attracted about 50 people. Nearly 10 opposed the shelter, while most other residents in attendance were in support of the temporary sanctuary.
The Heart and Home Collaborative, a temporary shelter opened by Stanford University students, provides refuge from winter cold and rain for between 10 and 15 older homeless women. The women, who are mostly older than 50 through age 75, stayed at Peninsula Bible Church in the Palo Verde neighborhood through Feb. 26. They were to transfer to University Lutheran Church last night.
But some residents last week petitioned the city planning and transportation department to deny the permit. Many said they were unaware the shelter would open and that they feared crime and disruptive behavior might affect their neighborhood.
City Planning Manager Amy French said the temporary use permit was delayed in part to give community members a chance to discuss the issue with Heart and Home organizers and the church, and because of a missing signature on the application, which has since been signed.
The church briefly notified the College Terrace Residents Association, which placed the issue on its Feb. 12 board meeting. Concern among residents regarding a lack of detail and outreach resulted in two meetings, the first of which occurred on Feb. 19, according to church officials.
Some residents attending the second meeting Thursday night said they feared the shelter would become similar to the situation at Cubberley Community Center, where multiple persons in vehicles have in the past been living in the parking lots, and some persons had caused problems, they said.
“This is not a Cubberley,” Bruce Christenson, vice president of the church’s congregational board, assured the crowd.
The church decided to support the shelter in response to the city’s request for the faith community to help shelter the homeless, Christenson said. Pastor Greg Schaefer said that providing sanctuary is part of the church’s Christian values.
Some of the residents did not approve of how the women were vetted. Trey Deitch, Heart and Home shelter coordinator and resident advocate for shelter operations, said the women undergo background checks through the Megan’s Law website to ensure they are not sex offenders, and they sign documents attesting they are not using drugs and have not committed serious crimes.
But residents who were fearful said the women’s backgrounds were not thoroughly investigated. Some residents in favor of the shelter said a requirement for the women to have background checks is offensive. It is a burden of proof not placed on any other citizens, they said.
“You wouldn’t automatically run a background check on your next-door neighbor,” a woman said.
Deitch said that if anyone appears to be under the influence or commits a disturbance, hired staff on site would remove that person. There haven’t been any outbursts or problems, he added.
Linda Martinet, serving as liaison for the Peninsula Bible Church regarding the shelter, said hosting the women has worked out well and without problems.
“The women are so grateful to be in a safe place,” she said.
Other volunteers said many of the women work two jobs but cannot afford housing.
Some College Terrace residents said they have been in similar circumstances at some point in their lives. Others asked those opposed to examine their fear. There is a danger in stereotyping the women because they are homeless, they said.
“I have been homeless,” said Maija Cruz, congregation board president and a Stanford senior in social psychology. “I was working three jobs and still could not afford housing.”
Another resident said she became homeless after a sudden divorce. After going through considerable personal and financial struggle, she eventually found her way to a halfway house in Redwood City, she said. She now has a master’s degree from Stanford.
“I remember to this day,” she said, wiping her eyes. “There’s nobody more afraid than somebody caught up in a transition and instability.”
A number of residents wanted to volunteer to help the women.
College Terrace Residents Association President Brent Barker appealed for understanding and support from those who maintained their fears are legitimate.
“The risk to us is minimal; the risk to them is tremendous. These women are open to predators,” he said.
Barker was on the citywide task force to solve the vehicle-dwelling conundrum, and he met with homeless vehicle dwellers. He was struck by “reciprocity of fear” during the encounters, he said.
“They were terrified. We had the power to evict them. The fear goes two ways and the protectiveness goes two ways,” he said. “These are not dangerous people; they are desperate people.”
City officials stated on the permit that the temporary shelter “would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity,” or to the “public health, safety general welfare or convenience.”
The program enhances the health, safety and welfare of unhoused persons by providing shelter in a supportive, clean and sanitary environment during the rainy and cold season, the city noted.
“Staff has thoroughly reviewed the request by Heart and Home Collaborative along with comments received from neighbors expressing concerns and support for the temporary use. Moreover, staff met with the host congregation and the shelter provider to review the shelter policies including the Community Living Guidelines and the Sober Living Policy.
“The site has been inspected by the fire department and staff finds that the issuance of the permit will not be detrimental to the public health and will be in conformance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,” the city wrote in a statement read at Thursday’s meeting.
So pleased to see these churches doing what Jesus would have done.
So sad that neighbors are not checking with previous church neighbors to see if and what problems they had.
Best wishes to the women involved and may those who need help continue to get the help that they need until they are in a position to look after themselves and then hopefully give back to others in need.
Ramrodded thru against the objections of many residents .
“So sad that neighbors are not checking with previous church neighbors to see if and what problems they had.”
So sad the neighborhood did not have enough time to marshal an adequate defense. Other neighborhoods should learn from our experience. Enough said…
Overall, Sue Dremann’s article is informative although it appears to lean in favor of the homeless shelter. The concern of myself and other College Terrace residents is that Heart and Home Collaborative does not appear to have put in place a mechanism for clearly establishing the identities of its homeless guests. And even if the identities were clearly established, Heart and Home Collaborative proposes only to search the Megan’s Law database for conviction of a sexual offense; it does not propose to investigate either conviction of a violent crime or use of illegal drugs. This apparently incomplete approach to establishing the identities and backgrounds of the guests raises questions regarding the potential impact of the homeless shelter on adjacent households and surrounding neighborhoods.
This meeting was the usual political theatre put forth by the welfare crew that supports such things. Remember, it is the same crew that claimed that Cubberley car camping was not a problem. Of course, it invokes religion and guilt.
According to their handout at the meeting, homeless women can go to the Opportunity Center, to spend their day time hours. Really? That would only make the OP even more of magnet than it already is.
April 7 limit: Give me a break! This thing has already been declared a success, and will continue to be declared, after April 7, no matter what. This is how the game is played by the welfare advocates.
There is only one way to determine what College Terrace really wants, and that is a secret vote. Our residents association (CTRA) is a good thing, and has done some valuable work, but it is incapable of standing up to liberal guilt…it has been co-opted.
CPA needs to set up a secret vote for any neighborhood facing such issues. No need for a special vote…just add in on to a regular ballot. Until that vote is completed, no permits should be issued.
Craig – did you attend the meeting? I asked someone if he knows you and when he replied affirmatively I asked him to point you out b/c I wanted to introduce myself to you. He could not find you in the room. Were you there? As for the end date of this temporary shelter, it is April 5. I believe you can count on that.
>Craig – did you attend the meeting?
No. Political theatre and group think does not interest me. Some folks I know did attend, however, and provided me with the handouts.
Annette, do you support a secret ballot for each neighborhood, in order to determine what each neighborhood really thinks about such major issues? Or do you prefer to provide political theatre?
>As for the end date of this temporary shelter, it is April 5. I believe you can count on that.
Why should I believe that statement? Are you saying that you will oppose any extension? If so, please state it here. I might add that it would be better if you use your full name, and the street you live on in CT. My name is Craig Laughton, and I live on Harvard St.
Victory for Stanford in its hypocritical drive to do good deeds on the backs of others.
I think a ballot is unrealistic b/c elections cost heaps of money and adding individual neighborhood preference questions to a regular election ballot, if that were even doable, would mean that people from all neighborhoods would be voting on a specific neighborhood’s issues. So, no, I do not support a secret ballot. But that doesn’t automatically mean that I support political theater. The neighborhood requested the meetings with HCC and the church and both complied. If you consider such meetings political theater and don’t like that then it makes sense to me that you didn’t attend.
As for April 5, in this instance b/c I think it important for HCC and the church to honor what they have said to the neighborhood, I would oppose any extension other than an extension to April 7 which is the date allowed per the approved permit. I will also note that the City would not approve an extension b/c the regulations that govern such things do not allow for that.
And I live on Amherst.
>I think a ballot is unrealistic b/c elections cost heaps of money and adding individual neighborhood preference questions to a regular election ballot, if that were even doable, would mean that people from all neighborhoods would be voting on a specific neighborhood’s issues.
They do not cost a heap of money, if they are put on a regular ballot schedule. What is wrong with “people from all neighborhoods would be voting on a specific neighborhood’s issues.”? CPA would need to sort it out, but major issues should be placed on the ballot. Otherwise, we are left with political theatre and co-opted neighborhood groups.
>I would oppose any extension other than an extension to April 7 which is the date allowed per the approved permit.
And where do they go then? Is this a backdoor way to get this thing made permanent in PA, as the originators from Stanford want? Why not make it permanent at Stanford…they have dorms over there.? I think I have a better idea: Have the homeless women live at City Hall, in PA. This might focus the minds of our CC members.
>And I live on Amherst
That’s real progress, Annette. Now, if you provide your full name, your arguments will have more gravitas. Your choice, of course.
“They do not cost a heap of money, if they are put on a regular ballot schedule. What is wrong with “people from all neighborhoods would be voting on a specific neighborhood’s issues.”? CPA would need to sort it out, but major issues should be placed on the ballot. Otherwise, we are left with political theatre and co-opted neighborhood groups. “
Certain things are nit decided by a vote. But I guess after you repeat “ secret neighborhood ballot” hundreds of times it sounds feasible to you
“And where do they go then?”
Do you care all of a sudden, Craig?
“That’s real progress, Annette. Now, if you provide your full name, your arguments will have more gravitas. Your choice, of course.”
Whether you think an argument has gravitas is irrelevant to the topic.
“Why not make it permanent at Stanford…they have dorms over there.?”
I think it should be made permanent in the leading elite neighborhood in PA- college terrace. What other neighborhood has a private library branch, permit parking ( subsidized, I.e. Welfare, from Stanford) endless traffic calming and they want special rads built for them as well)
Funny how the person who in thread after thread called out the churches for not doing their share, is now upset when they do.
Stanford…they have dorms over there.? I think I have a better idea: Have the homeless women live at City Hall, in PA. This might focus the minds of our CC members.
Agree one hundred percent. When Rubert of Midtown starts hosting the homeless, then he can talk.
“Agree one hundred percent. When Rubert of Midtown starts hosting the homeless, then he can talk.”
Oh, only people that host the homeless are allowed to support the above endeavor in the Dictatorship of College Terrace? What happened to an open exchange of,opinions and ideas?
But any, your post does not have any gravitas, according to the self appointed emperor.
This is one of the ugliest threads in a long time — but I find the hostility coming out of PA lately, esp. College Terrace, pretty shocking. Will everyone go to church tomorrow and hear the messages they blindly read in the Bible?
The women being sheltered from the cold and rain will not hurt you or your property.
Wow! I am shocked to hear the power of rich people. The people on the Buenavista Mobile Park, have not one, but two registered sex offenders, and the rest of the residents could do nothing about it because the police protect them. They do not want to deal with finding them another place to live. And here are these ladies, who need a place to leave. They are not leaving inside your house, and you opposed to have them close by your house? WOW!I remember reading something in the bible or scriptures about what you did to that person in need you did to me! Good luck entering to heaven, that is if you believe in a power higher than yourselves. I hope God does not tell you are not staying there because of what you did to him in earth.
Editors: Real Resident bogus poster of nonsense and scare URLs.
Below are part of the comments I made at Thursday evening’s meeting and after:
We’re talking about up to 45 days for a temporary shelter for a group of 15 middle-aged women without a place to go.
Where? Here, in University Church, in this sanctuary, by definition, both a religious place and a place of refuge. Providing a place of refuge is what churches do.
Has this been done before, and what was the experience? We have been told that during the women’s stay at Peninsula Bible Church ending now, and under a similar permit from the same group, Heart and Home Collaborative, there have been no problems or complaints from neighbors. This is not everything you need to know, but it is certainly relevant.
So what’s the rub for some here?
Would you feel different if this was 2012, just prior to the London Olympics and with the US swim team coming for final practices at Stanford, and a permit was requested for 15 members of the women’s team to reside at the church for 45 days? Is there a reasonable ground for drawing a distinction between those swimmers and the women scheduled to come here now?
One resident proposes that we have a secret ballot in College Terrace to see whether a majority wants the temporary shelter or not. For arguments’ sake, let’s put aside the fact that the decision to grant the permit resides with the Planning Director and not the electorate. Now consider the Federal Court’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 (the 2008 California ballot proposition created by opponents of same-sex marriage) in part on grounds that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The determining issue was not that something may disturb you, or that you may fear it. But rather, is there a reasonable ground for drawing a distinction among those who can marry, and I would extrapolate it here, to who can be granted overnight shelter on a temporary basis at the church. Fears or something that disturbs someone do not equal denial and exclusion.
So let’s focus on legitimate concerns, which include much more detailed information from Heart & Home than the 1-page Q&A they distributed at the meeting and known procedures to be set in place and publicized, so that if someone suspects a problem, it can be quickly checked out.
The young Stanford student Heart and Home board members who have addressed the neighborhood are to be commended for their undertaking, time, and commitment to their clients. But in response to too many questions, they have responded with general confidence that any issue has or will be handled and with little or no supporting detail. This will not be enough, if you want to win over residents with legitimate concerns.
Also, I feel it would better bolster confidence in residents if the temporary shelter at University Church were limited to the 15-women who have been together for 45 days at Peninsula Bible School, and if one or more move on for any reason, they not be replaced with a new client during the time of this permit, in order to maintain optimal group cohesion and a consistent interaction with residents.
Finally, a special shout out to all those many residents at the meeting who expressed their intent to enhance the women’s stay at the shelter, via meals, shower facilities, transportation, general help, and in other ways.
>Funny how the person who in thread after thread called out the churches for not doing their share, is now upset when they do.
I was talking about car campers (remember, 3 per church lot?). Only two churches actually agreed to do it, and one of them got blocked by its neighbors. If the churches want to house the homeless in neighborhoods, there should be a secret ballot vote by the neighborhood. If the neighborhood agrees, that is acceptable to me, even if I disagree…the people will have spoken. Why so much fear about a secret vote?
Read Fred’s comments above– no secret ballots. Doesn’t matter what you say you meant now– you called out the churches and now they are responding- much to your dismay. Some things are not voted on, whether it is acceptable to younger not either.
I’d worry about a secret vote because my neighbors might ballot ME off the block.
>let’s put aside the fact that the decision to grant the permit resides with the Planning Director and not the electorate
Fred, the Planning Director is very much part of the political system in PA. A secret ballot would let our CC members know what the real opinion is in any given neighborhood. The Planning Director will take directions from them. Do you really suggest that a federal court would strike down the will of the neighborhood, about a homeless center, based on gay marriage rulings? If so, you are writing new law, I think.
>We’re talking about up to 45 days for a temporary shelter
That is only the opening gambit…the drivers of this project state that they want a permanent homeless shelter. I think all sides should be honest about this. Thus, I ask: What happens after 45 days? Demands for an extension…would you support this, Fred?
A secret ballot is the only truthful way to determine what a neighborhood wants. I would think you would support such a fundamental approach…very similar to what happened in Barron Park re: Measure D.
Regards,
Craig
Secret ballot, secret ballot, secret ballot. That is all one hears. Forget the fact that cost of the secret ballot. Forget the fact that you can not really hold as every ballot on this issue. But once again, we hear “ secret ballot, secret ballot, secret ballot”.
If you evidence that this is some opening gambit in some secret conspiracy you see, then please provide it for us. If you want a measure d resolution, then collect signatures for citywide vote on the issue. If you want a federal court ruling, them file a lawsuit against the city ( of course remember who was complaining about “ frivolous” lawsuits regarding the illegal car camping ban )Saying “ secret ballot” over and over really does not solve the imaginary problem you see.
“That is only the opening gambit…the drivers of this project state that they want a permanent homeless shelter.”
What they want is rights. See below:
http://sfbayview.com/2014/california-homeless-bill-of-rights-were-coming-back-and-back-till-we-get-this-thing/
I feel like some of you have never heard of Survey Monkey. Someone please set one up regarding CT’s desire to host Stanford’s homeless shelter. It can be done very easily. Then we will know whether it is welcome or unwelcome.
Why send these women to the Opportunity Center? There have been violent crimes against women in this place, and most of these homeless women have children.
I have driven by the Opportunity Center in order to park at PAMF, and have seen some REALLY unsavory, thuggish-type men smoking infront of and next to the building. In the last two weeks, what they were smoking did NOT look like cigarettes.
( I live on Bowdoin)
“Real Resident” is making a false link between the women at the shelter and a totally unrelated SF group when he keeps posting an article from “Bay View” to stir up irrational fears.
This church emergency housing project is independent and has tried to give safety and warmth to homeless women who are often the object, not the perpetrators, of homeless crimes.
Also…the church project doesn’t need to be voted on via Survey Monkey.
These CT neighborhood posts are becoming hateful. Did Real Resident or Craig go to church today? Why does the College Terrace seem to be the site of so much hysteria and venom?
I’m curious Craig, do you oppose the concept of women’s shelters completely, or just would prefer them in someone elses neighborhood?
>I’m curious Craig, do you oppose the concept of women’s shelters completely, or just would prefer them in someone elses neighborhood?
I think any major project, especially welfare projects, like this one, should be subject to a secret neighborhood ballot. Do you agree? If not, why not?
BTW, since you claim to be from another community, where do you actually live? Care to provide your real name in that community? I always like it when posters tell the truth about themselves. I do.
“I think any major project, especially welfare projects, like this one, should be subject to a secret neighborhood ballot. Do you agree? If not, why not?”
More misinformation. This is not a major project. It is not a welfare project. There is no need for a secret neighborhood ballot- in fact not sure any kind iof secret ballot would be really be binding. Everyone should note that only one person is pushing this “ secret ballot” nonsense. And remember that the person pushing for secret ballots would not abide by the results– after all he was upset that churches werenot stepping up,to help the downtrodden and now thatbthey are he is complaining again!!!!!
“BTW, since you claim to be from another community, where do you actually live? Care to provide your real name in that community? I always like it when posters tell the truth about themselves. I do.”
Where a poster lives is irrelevant- more nonsense used to muddy the waters.
Craig, what is your definition of a “Welfare Project” since you seem to call anything you oppose by that name, regardless of whether or not its in any way taxpayer funded?
>Craig, what is your definition of a “Welfare Project”
Living in a housing project that is not paid for at market rates. In this particular case, a church contends that it is allowed to house 15 people, that cannot, otherwise afford to live in PA. Would I, or other CT residents, be allowed to rent out our homes to multiple people, below market rates, just because we felt sorry for them?
It is so very straight-forward: Put it to a secret ballot. Why is there so much fear?
Survey Monkey… Once and for all, are you welcome or not? Pretty simple principle of democracy. What are all you outsiders afraid of?
Homeless rights…. Read about it yourself:
http://sfbayview.com/2014/california-homeless-bill-of-rights-were-coming-back-and-back-till-we-get-this-thing/
All they need is a foot in the door.
Actually, Craig, you would be able to rent you house at whatever rate you want. And , yes, you could do that if you feel sorry for t hem. Why bother with an exercise that is costly and not even binding ( Craig’s secret ballot). Especially when only one person is agitating for a process that may lead to a costly lawsuit against the CT neighborhood.
Real resident– same basic response to you. A survey does not decide if people are welcome or not.
Craig, you sound like the kind of person who thinks someone who might otherwise not be able afford to live in Palo Alto, getting a break on their property taxes, is “Welfare Housing”.
But welfare is okay, when for example, a parking program is not paid for by the residents but subsidized by the big university next door. And Craig, for example, benefits personally from it– then it is not welfare.
“Real Resident” – Why do you keep pushing that URL, which is totally unrelated to this church project? Not scaring anyone.
Fred Balin – nice, thanks.
Chuck Jagoda looks like Derek Jacobi in the recent “Last Tango in Halifax.” An idea: maybe there could be a venue where online posters could go to debate, like in Hyde Park, London. Maybe there could be boxing ring nearby. This polemic is ludicrous. The church is barely in College Terrace. And, as somebody in Sue’s article asked, “do you do background checks on your neighbors?” I’m more afraid of the people who post saying they own guns and even walk around with concealed weapons. Why don’t we vote on everyone moving In to Palo Alto? Oh, and I’m a teal resident of college terrace top.
>Survey Monkey… Once and for all, are you welcome or not? Pretty simple principle of democracy.
Not a bad idea, Real Resident (of CT). I like it in principle. If the security issues could be sorted out by CPA (so that only registered residents of CT, or any other neighborhood faced by major issues), could respond, it might well work. Maybe utility bill addresses crossed with registered voters? CPA has, historically, done post card surveys…this is just another approach.
The overriding issue is that residents of any given neighborhood need to be allowed to state their opinions on major issues in their neighborhood. Why would anybody be fearful of such a basic democratic process?
I don’t think this is an issue to be decided by the vote of a neighborhood. This is a zoning issue and should be decided by the planning department with input from anyone who wants to give it. Although I don’t trust the planning department when it comes to zoning variances for office buildings, I do for homeless shelters. I don’t need to know the details of the screening process – I only need to know there is one and that it is working. My church, in another city, has participated in a rotating homeless shelter for years with no problems. We host 10-15 women and children who have been vetted by the organizers for two weeks I think twice a year. Volunteers from the church cook dinner, help with childcare and spend the night to help out. The families stay in tents in the library and other unused rooms so that they can have a little privacy. The neighbors have never complained. What are the neighbors saying near the church where the women just stayed? Is anyone trying to prevent them from coming back in six months or so? I very much doubt it.
These programs can be life savers for the women involved. I just can’t see the danger of middle aged women going through hard times, even if they have been incarcerated in the past. I would have no hesitation having churches in my neighborhood participating in this program and hope that they do.
>I don’t think this is an issue to be decided by the vote of a neighborhood
In other words, you want your agenda to prevail, no matter what the CT neighborhood wants. That meeting last Thursday night was a political theatre meant to convey the notion that CT actually wants this homeless shelter. I just want to know what CT really wants…don’t you?
A secret ballot (or survey) will let all of us in CT to express our opinions, without the political theatre. Those with agendas appear to be fearful of the will of the people in CT. Why the fear? I am not fearful of the will of CT folks, as long as their voice is truly heard.
I have been one of the paid staff working the 7P-7A shift 3 days a week at the H and H Collaborative Women’s Shelter since the opening. These women are no different than all of you who are so filled with hate for your fellow man. Any of you could end up homeless.
Fortunately, folks like you aren’t the only neighborhood residents. I had the pleasure of working with one Monday night. She exemplified what Christ’s teachings were all about.
I am shocked and appalled at the total ignorance of you NIMBY neighbors. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I certainly hope NONE of you are Christians. Jesus would be rolling around in his grave. If you recall, Jesus was homeless.
I have gotten to know these wonderful,talented women came into hard times from divorce, layoff,etc. They have to endure rain, freezing temperatures, potential death,risk of infection, rape,etc.when they have to live outdoors. How dare you, with your money and housing, deny a roof over these women’s heads, many of whom who work but can’t afford the outrageous rents in this area.
You all sound like the Ku Klux Klan, bigotted and mean-spirited. It’s a good thing I wasn’t at your meeting!!! You would have had to answer to me and it wouldn’t have been pretty.
From Annette (newly registered name) – to Lynn Huidekoper, RN – thank you for your comments about the women at the temporary shelter in CT, esp the reminder that such circumstances could befall any one of us. Sometimes downward spirals can be impossible to stop. Also, I have lived in CT for more than 30 years and in that time I have found that people in CT are indeed compassionate and caring and supportive of things like the shelter at University Lutheran; the negative posters are not representative of the neighborhood I know.
>I am shocked and appalled at the total ignorance of you NIMBY neighbors. You should be ashamed of yourselves. I certainly hope NONE of you are Christians. Jesus would be rolling around in his grave. If you recall, Jesus was homeless.
I am not a Christian, or of any other religious stripe. I am a proud NIMBY, because that means that I stand up for my neighborhood rights…thus my continued insistence on a secret vote (or survey). Surely, you are not saying that majority views should not be considered…or are you?
Why is this welfare project, which originated with idealistic Stanford students, not placed at Stanford, possibly in Memorial Church, which last I heard, was a Christian church?
BTW, the KKK claims to be Christian, too.
Test
Ms. Huidekoper – I am chiming in here a little late to say that I have lived in CT for 30 years and the neighborhood I have known is not one that is represented by the postings that you find objectionable. Indeed, one of the the things that I most like about College Terrace is the general feeling of goodwill amongst the neighbors. Had you been at the meeting last Thursday you would have heard many people speaking in support of the shelter and offering assistance to University Lutheran and the HHC. I am pretty sure I know who it was that you worked alongside on Monday; that person is more the sort I have encountered in this neighborhood over the last 3 decades.
>I have lived in CT for 30 years and the neighborhood I have known is not one that is represented by the postings that you find objectionable.
I have lived in CT for over 35 years. I can assure that you would not know what CT residents really feel/think about any particular major issue, short of a secret ballot/survey. For example, many people wanted all those campers gone from the JJ&F block, but they did not want to put up the fight (or be identified). Doria did put up the fight, and a few others, like me, did out part…that block is now cleared out. It was long overdue, because they were continually protected by advocates for the homeless; same thing happened at Cubberley.
You are entitled to your opinion, but that does not, necessarily, comport with reality in CT. The only way to know for sure is the secret ballot/survey.
I have a firm assurance from Amy French (Planning Dept.) that the temporary permit for the women’s homeless shelter will NOT be extended. This is a very good thing, in terms of College Terrace property protections. Since the University Lutheran Church is part of a Stanford focus, it is time that it/they take it over there (Women’s Center or Memorial Church?). It does NOT belong in CT…we should no longer get dumped on with welfare projects!
Did you get that assurance in writing?
>Did you get that assurance in writing?
Yes, of course. Solid as rock.