Homeless Shelters in the KC Region

[Cratedigger]

https://t.co/gcSnfsPS38

Lenexa city council killed a homeless shelter that would have been bought and updated with federal funds.

If this region is serious about solving the problem, there needs to be cooperation from the surrounding region as well. This cannot only be a KCMO problem

[Rusty Irish]

JoCo residents being arrogant snobs again what a shocker.

[GRID]

It's funny how suburbs like Lenexa want a "city center" but don't want any actual city responsibilities.

[FangKC]

They expect KCMO to take responsibility for all the metro homeless.

[Rusty Irish]

They expect KCMO to take responsibility for all the metro homeless.

Yep. JoCo has a lot of folks with roots in the rural Midwest who look down their nose at the small towns they come from as being backwards, Trump voters etc, but the mentality isn't all that different there compared to some podunk town with 5,000 people. It's a place where driving massive trucks is a status symbol, living in homes with huge plots of land, social circles revolve around going to church every Sunday and talking about college sports, it's also hugely anti urban and they view KCMO as being dirty and dangerous. This is just another example of it. Big progressive democrat voters eh.

[grovester]

JoCo residents being arrogant snobs again what a shocker.

Johnson County government was strongly in favor of this project.

Lenexa planning commission gave the city electeds cover to reject it.

[herrfrank]

^Did Lenexa go (D) in 2020? I could only find the precinct numbers, and it was closer than I expected.

Lenexa used to be v-e-r-y Republican

[grovester]

City council is non-partisan, but seems most of their state legislators are Democrats.

If the planning commission didn't reject on process grounds, it may have passed but it would still have been close.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I hate the political divide of this country, but it seems Dems (specifically suburban affluent Dems) are worse WRT things like helping the homeless.

They preach about affordable housing, welcoming communities for all, then turn around and go militant NIMBY when it comes to a homeless shelter in their community. Repubs aren’t better on the issue no matter what environment they’re in, but at least they’re honest from the start that they don’t want homeless (Or most anyone different) in their community. I don’t agree with that stance, but I at least respect the honesty.

I concur with everyone’s responses here though, we need to work like a region and not like a bunch of leeches slowly killing the host.

[grovester]

As I mentioned, it was the non-partisan planning commission that killed this in a 9-0 vote based on technical issues.

No one, regardless of party, is going to make a difficult vote over the unanimous rejection of the planning board.

This isn't the final say on a center, just a missed opportunity.

Also, the covid funds that were making this possible need to be allocated before 2026, adding another layer of problems.

[TheLastGentleman]

I hate the political divide of this country, but it seems Dems (specifically suburban affluent Dems) are worse WRT things like helping the homeless.

They preach about affordable housing, welcoming communities for all, then turn around and go militant NIMBY when it comes to a homeless shelter in their community. Repubs aren’t better on the issue no matter what environment they’re in, but at least they’re honest from the start that they don’t want homeless (Or most anyone different) in their community. I don’t agree with that stance, but I at least respect the honesty.

I concur with everyone’s responses here though, we need to work like a region and not like a bunch of leeches slowly killing the host.

EVERYONE turns "militant NIMBY" when they become a homeowner, regardless of who they philosophically are, and JOCO is probably 95% homeowners. Another demonstration of how American suburbia completely dissolves any sort of societal cohesion.
As for Republicans' views of homelessness, I have overheard a republican discussion that literally included "Well they won't let us execute them, so what do we do with them?" Almost every republican I know is obsessed with the homeless and make fun of them like they are seeing animals in a zoo. It is their number 1 thought when they talk about cities or visit them. Saying dems are worse on homelessness is wild.

[Cratedigger]

I hate the political divide of this country, but it seems Dems (specifically suburban affluent Dems) are worse WRT things like helping the homeless.

They preach about affordable housing, welcoming communities for all, then turn around and go militant NIMBY when it comes to a homeless shelter in their community. Repubs aren’t better on the issue no matter what environment they’re in, but at least they’re honest from the start that they don’t want homeless (Or most anyone different) in their community. I don’t agree with that stance, but I at least respect the honesty.

I concur with everyone’s responses here though, we need to work like a region and not like a bunch of leeches slowly killing the host.

EVERYONE turns "militant NIMBY" when they become a homeowner, regardless of who they philosophically are, and JOCO is probably 95% homeowners. Another demonstration of how American suburbia completely dissolves any sort of societal cohesion.
As for Republicans' views of homelessness, I have overheard a republican discussion that literally included "Well they won't let us execute them, so what do we do with them?" Almost every republican I know is obsessed with the homeless and make fun of them like they are seeing animals in a zoo. It is their number 1 thought when they talk about cities or visit them. Saying dems are worse on homelessness is wild.

Everyone?

[TheLastGentleman]

Judging by how strong and widespread nimbyism is in single family areas, yes

[brewcrew1000]

This is what pisses me off about the suburbs. If police see a homeless person in Blue Springs, the police will basically just drop them off in KCMO and have them deal with it because KCMO has the resources while Blue Springs does not. It should be a shared responsibility but the suburbs just treat it as out of sight out of mind

But the suburbs will never comply in my lifetime because the suburbs is all about protecting home values, how will a persons home value keep rising in Lenexa if they are 2 blocks from a homeless shelter?

[mjbauer95]

It's definitely a disappointment, but I don't think the county will just give up on this. There's definitely support for a homeless shelter in JOCO in the abstract, but it sounds like no one wants it in their backyard.

The covid money expires at the end of the year, but I'm not sure what other options there are. They could try another city but most likely the city will do exactly what Lenexa did here. Maybe they could buy some unincorporated land off I-35 or US 69 and put some prefab homes or trailers on it? In a decade or so suburbs will sprawl to meet it & provide jobs.

[FangKC]

This is what pisses me off about the suburbs. If police see a homeless person in Blue Springs, the police will basically just drop them off in KCMO and have them deal with it because KCMO has the resources while Blue Springs does not. It should be a shared responsibility but the suburbs just treat it as out of sight out of mind

But the suburbs will never comply in my lifetime because the suburbs is all about protecting home values, how will a persons home value keep rising in Lenexa if they are 2 blocks from a homeless shelter?

When St. Joseph shut down their only homeless shelter, they paid for bus tickets so their homeless could travel to Kansas City.

[Anthony_Hugo98]

I hate the political divide of this country, but it seems Dems (specifically suburban affluent Dems) are worse WRT things like helping the homeless.

They preach about affordable housing, welcoming communities for all, then turn around and go militant NIMBY when it comes to a homeless shelter in their community. Repubs aren’t better on the issue no matter what environment they’re in, but at least they’re honest from the start that they don’t want homeless (Or most anyone different) in their community. I don’t agree with that stance, but I at least respect the honesty.

I concur with everyone’s responses here though, we need to work like a region and not like a bunch of leeches slowly killing the host.

EVERYONE turns "militant NIMBY" when they become a homeowner, regardless of who they philosophically are, and JOCO is probably 95% homeowners. Another demonstration of how American suburbia completely dissolves any sort of societal cohesion.
As for Republicans' views of homelessness, I have overheard a republican discussion that literally included "Well they won't let us execute them, so what do we do with them?" Almost every republican I know is obsessed with the homeless and make fun of them like they are seeing animals in a zoo. It is their number 1 thought when they talk about cities or visit them. Saying dems are worse on homelessness is wild.

I say they’re worse because they pretend to care, then oppose things that would actually help contribute to solving the problem. It’s the inconsistency of principle.

[Chris Stritzel]

I think there are misconceptions by suburban people about who homeless people are. I divide homelessness into 3 groups all requiring differing kinds of care and assistance.

Group 1: Those down on their luck. They lost their job, couldn't find one, ran out of money and were evicted from their apartments. These folks need temporary housing to help get them back on their feet, find a job that pays decent, and then live in this supportive housing for a while until they have enough in savings to live on their own again.

Group 2: Those who have abused drugs and alcohol. These are people who ended up on the streets because of the choices they made that they could've controlled and act out as a result of these choices. They didn't have their support structure. Now they're homeless with continued cravings for the drugs and alcohol that ended up bringing them to this situation. We need to have a facility just for them, which would blend the supportive housing of Group 1 with a rehab service to help get these people back on their feet on two fronts. Even after they're in a good state, it's important for them to know that help is close by.

Group 3 can be subdivided into two distinct groups...

Group 3a: Those suffering from PTSD. this is mostly Veterans. Because of the things they've seen, reliving the nightmares, and more they've become homeless. They need a support structure and the best way to do that is through psychiatric rehab. This does mean a temporary institutionalization until their mind gets clear enough to move into supportive housing with counseling services to assist them.

Group 3b (and this is what suburban people may have thought would end up in Lenexa): The truly mentally insane. These are people who are, unfortunately, mentally sick. They're not aware of their surroundings, aren't under the influence of any substance, and aren't veterans. They have problems far beyond basic rehab and require institutionalization to make sure they don't harm themselves or any members of the public. These folks tend to attract the most media attention and set the stage for what public opinions will be on the issue.

We need to take care of our most vulnerable and this is very much one of those cases that requires smart care. As a Republican, it's insulting to assume most Republicans want to treat homeless people as zoo animals or kill them. That's not a real solution and 98% of society understands this. You need to assess the situation and act accordingly. Republicans would prefer we don't kill or treat these people like animals. Only a fringe believe that elimination is appropriate.

As for the Lenexa homeless shelter, I think it would've been approved if it were clear that it would serve folks who fall into Group 1 (as that's likely who would've been there). The other groups require more sophisticated care. Yes, it'll require spending money but it's a small downpayment to ensure the future for the currently homeless is brighter and gives hope to those who might not be mentally with it. It's a team effort. Lenexa rejecting this is a setback, but a solution will be found. I'm confident.

[FangKC]

There is only one category to explain homelessness. They are people who don't have money to keep or acquire permanent housing.

A friend of mine is a published author and operates substance abuse clinics in New York City and Los Angeles. He was a substance abuser at one time. He says there are millions of people with mental illness and substance abuse problems in this country who never become homeless because they have enough money, good health insurance, and a strong support network. But they are just as sick as the people living on the street.

He says we cannot treat anyone's mental illness or substance abuse if they don't have permanent housing.

[herrfrank]

Nobody has "permanent housing" -- in the US we can mitigate this by fee simple ownership, but even then housing is not permanent. Property taxes, anyone?

Even in socialist regimes with housing guarantees, the winds of time shift, and those guarantees often become as ephemeral as the paper on which they are decreed.