Friday, August 19, 2011

Compassion Knoxville v. Ron Peabody

Ah, there's nothing like a good old fashion pis--, er spitting, contest.

Apparently Ron Peabody doesn't like the final report released by Compassion Knoxville, which happens to be the same group he bailed on to run for a City Council seat.

He issued a statement this morning. You can read it right smack here.

In it, Peabody, for five pages, lists a number of initiatives the group put on its suggestion or to-do list, or whatever. Then he says why they shouldn't be on there. Or whatever.

Compassion Knoxville responded. You can read the group's statement right smack here.

In it, officials tell Peabody to get a life. Or something like that.

Hey, I'm just the messenger.

I don't really care one way or another.

But, these releases make for good blog fodder on a slow (knock on wood) Friday afternoon.

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

The thing I saw the other night and in the report is that on the smaller committees in almost all the committees the service providers out numbered the public and even the public that was on these some where supporters of the ten year plan. Ginny Wetherstone even serviced on a committee as well as Finbarr Saunders. The mayors said they did not want any political involvement. Finbarr should not have been on there and Ginny Wetherstone should not have been on any committee because she has a vested interest. All these service providers have a vested interest, I have a problem with that.

Amy Gibson should have also stated that she is a Madeline Rogero and Finbarr Saunders supporter, she should have not been hired. Madeline was already running for mayor and so was Finbarr when she was hired. This whole thing sticks to high heaven.

These same people praising building of all the housing in the neighborhoods are the ones against building a school for Carter Elementary. I would rather build the school then to waste money on buildings that we don't have the funding for section 8 vouchers to put people in.

Anonymous said...

Amy disclosed to Matheny AND Peabody that she was a Rogero supporter and they hired her anyway. So much for that one.

As for politicians' involvement, Ron Peabody is making this (and red light cameras) the focal pt of this campaign. He touts his time as co-chair of the group.

So who's using who?

Anonymous said...

Well you are wrong on that, the interview with Amy last between 45 to 60 minutes and it was never asked of her, what her political leanings were or if she was supporting any certain candidate. It was made clear to Ron and Stephanie that this was not to be political and until about a week ago it was discovered on her Facebook page that she supported Madeline and Finbarr Saunders. She should have revealed that on Wednesday night at the unvealing of the plan, I mean recommendations.

Ron did not make it political, when he decided to run for City Council he announced it at the June 8th meeting to the task force and issued a letter to the tweo Mayors the next day. He said it would not be fair to the task force or to the process for him to remain while running for office. Stephany and Amy are the ones that made it political when they let Finbarr Saunders and the service providers dominate the committees.

Ginny Wetherstone should have never been on any part of this, she has a vested interest in the program continueing and her recieving more money.

Another thing if you read Ron's press release he does not bring up who Amy is supporting he does not mention it at all, I brought it up. Ron's campaign up until this week has been about Red Light Cameras and neighborhood issues. He has not brought up the Ten Year Plan or Cammpassion Knoxville unless asked.

Anonymous said...

That last sentence isn't true. Peabody was aked two questions at last night's forum. Neither of them were related to homelessness, yet he worked the TYP into both answers.

Were you there?

Anonymous said...

Pictures tell the story:

http://brianhornback.blogspot.com/2011/08/author-of-compassion-knoxville-changes.html#links

Any account of Amy Gibson saying upfront that she was a Rogero story is not honest. If it were, then why did Gibson take down the pictures of her and Madeline from her FaceBook page?

On KnoxBlab you can see the picture of Gibson and Rogero plain as the nose on your face.

Anonymous said...

Up till last night you may be right I was not there last night, but my last sentance is true because I was not there last night. I have been at to more than 20 meetings that Ron has been at or spoke at and he has not brought it up unless asked. Last night would make since to bring it up because the plan had been reveiled by that time and I am sure he was giving his oppinnion on the matter.

Amy and Stephanie are looking for jobs with Madelines staff if she gets elected, so I am sure they are bragging about being a part of Commpassion Knoxville.

My point was to say that the process was not suppose to be political, but Stephanie and Amy made it that way when they allowed Finbarr to be on a committee so he could add it to his talking points and resume. Madeline I am sure and Finbarr got updates from Stephanie and Amy throughout the process. This was a fixed process and again the citizens that have to pay for this had no say so in what happens.

Anonymous said...

Amy Gibson is listed as a donor on Rogero's first financial disclosure in January. Before Compassion Knoxviile came into being. It was a known thing. There is no conspiracy here.

Anonymous said...

Oh, hell, this is all so frikking stupid. I bet if you took a poll of intelligent, rational (meaning non-lunatic) Knoxville voters (that leaves Hornback and Mtichell out, although Mitchell's not stupid, just double crazy), the vast majority of them who follow politics will tell you that Rogero is a vastly superior candidate.

Practice saying Mayor Rogero, haters.

Scott Barker said...

I want to correct one thing. Service providers were intended to be part of the Compassion Knoxville process from day one, as KNS reported.

Brian Hornback said...

I can't speak for Mitchell's iq or is crazy factor. All I can say, I can appreciate that you think about the rogue conservative blogger aka ShockAndAweHornbackIAm aka ME.

Everyone has groupies, glad to know that you are one of mine. How that reflects on your iq or crazy factor, I am not certain

Anonymous said...

Scott Barker said...

I want to correct one thing. Service providers were intended to be part of the Compassion Knoxville process from day one, as KNS reported.

What is the source for that?

Scott Barker said...

The first article after Jon Lawler and Robert Finley resigned, posted on knoxnews on Wednesday Feb. 9, with the print version published Thursday, Feb. 10.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/feb/09/jon-lawler-top-aide-step-down-city-county-homeless/

Here's the graf that addresses the formation of the committee that would later be named Compassion Knoxville.

"The next move, officials said, will be for both leaders to form a committee comprised of opponents, supporters, service providers and religious groups to go into the community and seek public input for a new proposal."

Anonymous said...

I want to correct one thing. Service providers were intended to be part of the Compassion Knoxville process from day one, as KNS reported.

Service providers had a 4 to 1 superiority on some topic groups. That wasn't intended.

Scott Barker said...

"Service providers had a 4 to 1 superiority on some topic groups."

Yes, and in some topic groups community members outnumbered service providers by the same ratio. And it makes sense, when you look at the topic groups. The topic group on services was heavy with service providers, while the topic group dealing with community involvement was top-heavy with community representatives.

Anonymous said...

Yes, and in some topic groups community members outnumbered service providers by the same ratio. And it makes sense, when you look at the topic groups. The topic group on services was heavy with service providers, while the topic group dealing with community involvement was top-heavy with community representatives.

The housing group was dominated by homeless service providers. They out voted the public. That is not what the Mayors instructed Compassion Knoxville to do.

This result was the same result at TYP. Why are you defending the homeless industry? Their tactics are deplorable.

Scott Barker said...

"This result was the same result at TYP. Why are you defending the homeless industry? Their tactics are deplorable."

Some might say that demonizing people who dedicate their lives to helping those who are less fortunate is deplorable.

The result was the same in part because the TYP makes sense to most people. I certainly defend the housing first approach, which isn't exactly the same as defending the "homeless industry."

Anonymous said...

The result was the same in part because the TYP makes sense to most people.

It didn't make sense to our two Mayors. Wet Shelters increase crime. This plan is the TYP yet more expensive and with less requirements. Why does the Sentinel want to damn North Knoxville into being the center for more homeless industry?

Scott Barker said...

First, TYP is still in effect, so while the mayors might have had problems with it (Burchett and alcohol, for example), they didn't scuttle the whole plan itself. Everything other than searching for new locations for housing had continued as is.

Second, KNS doesn't want to "damn North Knoxville." The editorial board has supported the TYP, which has a scattered site approach so that everything isn't concentrated in North Knoxville.

A wet shelter is one of the KC recommendations, but I don't think it's one that will get much traction - a safety center would be a better alternative, in my opinion, because it address petty crime, mental health and addiction. And just to be clear, a wet shelter is not the same as permanent supportive housing.

Anonymous said...

A wet shelter is one of the KC recommendations, but I don't think it's one that will get much traction - a safety center would be a better alternative, in my opinion, because it address petty crime, mental health and addiction.

The proposed safety center is a wet shelter. Did you read this plan?

Scott Barker said...

Yes, I read it. There are recommendations for both. The safety center is listed under 'Mental Health' and the wet shelter is listed under 'Safety.' I was under the impression that the safety center would be a more comprehensive facility. They seem the same in the summary, but on page 82 the definitions reveal them to be different.

Anonymous said...

There are recommendations for both

Both?

Why did you defend this? Do you want a wet shelter next to your house?

Scott Barker said...

Both - did you read the report?

I live near the proposed site for the safety center and have no qualms about it whatsoever. As I posted earlier, I don't think a wet shelter will get much political traction.

I don't necessarily agree with every single one of the KC recommendations, but taken as a whole they validate and signal public support for the principles behind the TYP. I think an approach that coordinates the service providers to avoid duplication of effort, tracks clients through the system, and utilizes housing first and permanent supportive housing is the most effective and cost-efficient way to address the homeless issue.

Anonymous said...

I don't necessarily agree with every single one of the KC recommendations, but taken as a whole they validate and signal public support for the principles behind the TYP.

Public support?

There is nothing other than the report itself and your words to speak to that. You speak with authority you don't posses. That is your opinion.

Scott Barker said...

Yes, it's my opinion. I don't know how much authority I possess, but it's certainly more authority than someone who doesn't use his or her name.

Anonymous said...

http://vimeo.com/28031833

I don't see those suggestions were from the public. The vocabulary is that of the homeless industry.

Scott Barker said...

The topic groups had to take phrases and thoughts collected at the public meetings and turn them into coherent recommendations. Of course it's going to sound like jargon. I've looked through the comments (though I haven't done a thorough analysis) and thought CK did a good job summarizing them. I might change my mind once I look through it more in depth.

Anonymous said...

I've looked through the comments (though I haven't done a thorough analysis) and thought CK did a good job summarizing them. I might change my mind once I look through it more in depth.

Should you have done that before writing your editorial?

Scott Barker said...

It wasn't necessary. The point of the editorial was that the recommendations for the most part validate the primary elements of the TYP. There were plenty of comments regarding supportive housing, a coordinating office and the use of a database to track clients that I knew I was on firm ground. I reckon I should have said I didn't do a statistical analysis. If you're the same anonymous who has been posting on this thread, I certainly have read the report closer than you.

Anonymous said...

It wasn't necessary. The point of the editorial was that the recommendations for the most part validate the primary elements of the TYP. There were plenty of comments regarding supportive housing, a coordinating office and the use of a database to track clients that I knew I was on firm ground.

Wasn't necessary?

Plenty?

This firm ground, what is it based on?

Scott Barker said...

Most of the comments I read regarding housing indicated that more housing was needed and there were many that advocated for permanent supportive housing. I didn't do a statistical analysis, but I didn't think one was necessary. Still don't. Bottom line is, the people who don't like the TYP had their chance to make their voices heard. And judging from the comments, some of them did. But those who think housing first is the correct approach made their voices heard, too, and there were more of them. That doesn't mean that housing first is the best way to address homelessness - housing first is better because it works.

Anonymous said...

housing first is better because it works.

Minvilla is 70% full. There are no more housing vouchers or money for case managers.

Scott Barker said...

That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It means there isn't any money right now. Which is what I've said before -- the availability of federal money is the true limitation of housing first.

Anonymous said...

It means there isn't any money right now.

Then why do you advise to stay the course?

Scott Barker said...

Because it's a good plan and not all of it is dependent on federal dollars. Some local funds go to the overall plan (though not housing) and as I said, the city ain't broke by any means. And federal dollars won't completely dry up - the pie likely will be smaller after the congressional super-committee does its work (or doesn't) and Knoxville's portion will be harder to obtain, but there will still be money out there. For example, if city and county officials can find grant money now for a safety center, from HUD, DOJ or wherever, then they should move forward with a safety center. If not, then keep it in the works for when money does become available.

Anonymous said...

Because it's a good plan and not all of it is dependent on federal dollars.

Madeline Rogero says permanent supportive housing is all federal dollars. The center point of the plan is permanent supportive housing. How can a plan be good if it is not sustainable?

Scott Barker said...

Permanent supportive housing is at the center of the plan, but it isn't the entire plan and even PSH doesn't necessarily mean new apartment buildings constructed with federal dollars. Remember that more than 300 people (that's a number from last year - I don't know if the number is now over 400 or not) considered chronically homeless were placed in housing before a single new PSH unit was available. The TYP is also about coordinating services among providers, which has continued and must continue. There are other elements of the plan, too, most, if not all of which, are sustainable without federal dollars.

Having a plan in place is always good, even if the funding for the entire plan is uncertain. Think of a person who wants to buy a house. He or she needs to have a plan on how to save for a downpayment, obtain a loan and pay for taxes, maintenance, etc. on a house one he or she buys it. That person might not have all the elements in place at the beginning, and there might be obstacles he or she can't control (tightfisted lenders, for example) but that doesn't mean he or she shouldn't have a plan to make those dreams come true. He or she might have to delay buying the house for any number of factors, but that doesn't mean the plan is defective. Same goes for public policy.

Scott Barker said...

Oh, and Rogero is not exactly accurate (assuming you quoted her accurately, which I doubt). New PSH units almost certainly can't be built without federal grant funds, but private investors can and have played a key role in getting these projects built. Tax credits are given to private investors who put money into these projects. Of course, that's the type of tax credit that might be on the table for the congressional super committee, but as it stands now they help with funding for low-income housing.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and Rogero is not exactly accurate (assuming you quoted her accurately, which I doubt). New PSH units almost certainly can't be built without federal grant funds, but private investors can and have played a key role in getting these projects built.

What is the point of building more PSH if there are no housing vouchers? MinVilla isn't full and can't be filled because there are no housing vouchers. Rogero would build empty PSH apartments? How will Flenniken be filled?

Scott Barker said...

Please improve your reading comprehension. I wrote that PSH should only be built if funding is available. If funding is not available, it won't be built. Doesn't matter who is mayor. Oh, and it would be nice if you gave your source for the assertion there are no Section 8 vouchers. You might be right, but you are anonymous and clearly have an agenda, so sourcing would be helpful.

Anonymous said...

You might be right, but you are anonymous and clearly have an agenda, so sourcing would be helpful.

The person who wrote the Sunday editorial on Compassion Knoxville is anonymous and clearly has an agenda.

From the editorial, "Compassion Knoxville proves the city and county are home to many caring and thoughtful residents who want to improve the lot of the homeless. They have spoken, and their voices should be heard."

Whoever the anonymous person was that wrote that claims it was the voice of the people. It wasn't. The people may make their voice heard at the election booth.

Scott Barker said...

Editorials aren't anonymous. Below the editorial is a list of the editorial board members - publisher Patrick Birmingham, editor Jack McElroy and me (for those reading who don't know, I'm the editorial page editor). We are collectively responsible for the opinions expressed in our editorials, and anyone who knows anything about newspapers knows that.

You are correct in that the people make their voices heard in elections. But not everything can or should be put up to a referendum. Compassion Knoxville was launched to gather public input and make recommendations. It did so. You don't like the outcome? Sorry to hear that, but you had your chance to participate. Did you?

Anonymous said...

Editorials aren't anonymous.

There was no name on the editorial. That is anonymous.

Scott Barker said...

Well, you show an ignorance of how newspapers work, and I can't do much other than point out the facts. By the way, we are conversing on a message board, and I am using my real name. You are hiding behind anonymity. That's your right, but it undermines your credibility. And you didn't answer my question. Did you participate in Compassion Knoxville?

Anonymous said...

Well, you show an ignorance of how newspapers work, and I can't do much other than point out the facts.

The editorial was anonymous. If you wrote it, then claim it.

Scott Barker said...

I already claimed it. You really need to work on your reading comprehension before posting on a public forum.

Anonymous said...

I already claimed it.

Where? It isn't at the Sentinel site. I didn't see it here.

Scott Barker said...

I will re-post this once, from an earlier post on this very thread.

"Editorials aren't anonymous. Below the editorial is a list of the editorial board members - publisher Patrick Birmingham, editor Jack McElroy and me (for those reading who don't know, I'm the editorial page editor). We are collectively responsible for the opinions expressed in our editorials, and anyone who knows anything about newspapers knows that."

I know I have explained this to you here, at knoxblab and on the KNS website, but I'll do it again. The process goes like this: The editorial board meets and decides what position to take on various issues and what approach to take in the editorials. It is a group decision. Typically, I write the editorials and send them to Jack and Patrick for their comments. I incorporate whatever changes they wish to make. Again, it is a collective decision. An editorial is - by definition - the official viewpoint of the newspaper's management. It needs no byline. In fact, it would be deceptive if an editorial carried my byline.

Editorials are handled this way nearly universally. The NY Times doesn't use bylines. The Washington Post doesn't. The Wall Street Journal doesn't.

Class dismissed.

Anonymous said...

In fact, it would be deceptive if an editorial carried my byline.

How could signing your name be deceptive? What is deceptive is an editorial written by someone who didn't read the Compassion Knoxville report.

You have clarified the value in Sentinel editorials.

Scott Barker said...

I read the Compassion Knoxville report. In fact, I believe that earlier in this thread I pointed out errors in your depiction of the report.

Anonymous said...

I read the Compassion Knoxville report.


I've looked through the comments (though I haven't done a thorough analysis) and thought CK did a good job summarizing them. I might change my mind once I look through it more in depth.

Your preconceived notions were confirmed by a cursory review? You have an agenda that will not be confused by facts?

Over 38 percent of the recommendations did not come from the public. Next you will claim that the homeless service provers are the public?

Scott Barker said...

No, I looked through the comments prior to discussing the editorial with the board.

I'm glad you've done a statistical analysis of the recommendations -- if indeed you did. Forgive me if I remain skeptical of its accuracy.