tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post7951163357495893577..comments2023-03-30T04:18:01.811-07:00Comments on Screams from the Porch: Compassion Knoxville v. Ron PeabodyMike Donilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18400768249723304044noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-45608923378276821142011-08-24T13:21:03.959-07:002011-08-24T13:21:03.959-07:00No, I looked through the comments prior to discuss...No, I looked through the comments prior to discussing the editorial with the board.<br /><br />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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-35245235295584746362011-08-24T12:37:30.628-07:002011-08-24T12:37:30.628-07:00I read the Compassion Knoxville report.
I've...I read the Compassion Knoxville report.<br /><br /><br />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. <br /><br />Your preconceived notions were confirmed by a cursory review? You have an agenda that will not be confused by facts? <br /><br />Over 38 percent of the recommendations did not come from the public. Next you will claim that the homeless service provers are the public?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-37440453542125180152011-08-24T12:20:48.342-07:002011-08-24T12:20:48.342-07:00I read the Compassion Knoxville report. In fact, I...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-67037417364146264122011-08-24T12:16:39.345-07:002011-08-24T12:16:39.345-07:00In fact, it would be deceptive if an editorial car...In fact, it would be deceptive if an editorial carried my byline.<br /><br />How could signing your name be deceptive? What is deceptive is an editorial written by someone who didn't read the Compassion Knoxville report.<br /><br />You have clarified the value in Sentinel editorials.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-57615059443284673432011-08-24T11:55:22.925-07:002011-08-24T11:55:22.925-07:00I will re-post this once, from an earlier post on ...I will re-post this once, from an earlier post on this very thread. <br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Class dismissed.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-20896782071407610952011-08-24T10:55:14.568-07:002011-08-24T10:55:14.568-07:00I already claimed it.
Where? It isn't at the ...I already claimed it.<br /><br />Where? It isn't at the Sentinel site. I didn't see it here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-78283425862861616522011-08-24T09:41:33.439-07:002011-08-24T09:41:33.439-07:00I already claimed it. You really need to work on y...I already claimed it. You really need to work on your reading comprehension before posting on a public forum.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-90088729262767305102011-08-24T09:30:31.211-07:002011-08-24T09:30:31.211-07:00Well, you show an ignorance of how newspapers work...Well, you show an ignorance of how newspapers work, and I can't do much other than point out the facts. <br /><br />The editorial was anonymous. If you wrote it, then claim it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-51205968388222393022011-08-24T08:30:09.993-07:002011-08-24T08:30:09.993-07:00Well, you show an ignorance of how newspapers work...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?Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-31565200397908266312011-08-24T08:20:50.682-07:002011-08-24T08:20:50.682-07:00Editorials aren't anonymous.
There was no nam...Editorials aren't anonymous.<br /><br />There was no name on the editorial. That is anonymous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-42240498337947126612011-08-24T08:01:57.980-07:002011-08-24T08:01:57.980-07:00Editorials aren't anonymous. Below the editori...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.<br /><br />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?Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-36403454480253557322011-08-24T07:50:49.176-07:002011-08-24T07:50:49.176-07:00You might be right, but you are anonymous and clea...You might be right, but you are anonymous and clearly have an agenda, so sourcing would be helpful. <br /><br />The person who wrote the Sunday editorial on Compassion Knoxville is anonymous and clearly has an agenda.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-81941213831644462192011-08-24T07:44:11.564-07:002011-08-24T07:44:11.564-07:00Please improve your reading comprehension. I wrote...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-81234510498908235412011-08-24T07:33:55.177-07:002011-08-24T07:33:55.177-07:00Oh, and Rogero is not exactly accurate (assuming y...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.<br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-44563367361012149892011-08-24T07:14:48.265-07:002011-08-24T07:14:48.265-07:00Oh, and Rogero is not exactly accurate (assuming y...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-88825353273180523892011-08-24T07:08:26.106-07:002011-08-24T07:08:26.106-07:00Permanent supportive housing is at the center of t...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. <br /><br />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 Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-9975698331880218022011-08-24T06:52:02.399-07:002011-08-24T06:52:02.399-07:00Because it's a good plan and not all of it is ...Because it's a good plan and not all of it is dependent on federal dollars.<br /><br />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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-50993299176821791122011-08-24T06:04:00.221-07:002011-08-24T06:04:00.221-07:00Because it's a good plan and not all of it is ...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-84972468627504573762011-08-24T04:12:53.438-07:002011-08-24T04:12:53.438-07:00It means there isn't any money right now.
The...It means there isn't any money right now.<br /><br />Then why do you advise to stay the course?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-84506242560325702392011-08-23T20:48:24.592-07:002011-08-23T20:48:24.592-07:00That doesn't mean it doesn't work. It mean...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-75975235987231268212011-08-23T20:43:08.013-07:002011-08-23T20:43:08.013-07:00housing first is better because it works.
Minvil...housing first is better because it works. <br /><br />Minvilla is 70% full. There are no more housing vouchers or money for case managers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-73016070427062756892011-08-23T19:56:43.132-07:002011-08-23T19:56:43.132-07:00Most of the comments I read regarding housing indi...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-6426741022000456612011-08-23T19:36:54.582-07:002011-08-23T19:36:54.582-07:00It wasn't necessary. The point of the editoria...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. <br /><br />Wasn't necessary?<br /><br />Plenty? <br /><br />This firm ground, what is it based on?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-55751177801933702772011-08-23T16:16:06.524-07:002011-08-23T16:16:06.524-07:00It wasn't necessary. The point of the editoria...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.Scott Barkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1613255034831961362.post-14373230216351650792011-08-23T15:45:20.592-07:002011-08-23T15:45:20.592-07:00I've looked through the comments (though I hav...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. <br /><br />Should you have done that before writing your editorial?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com