Dear Commissioner:
I am writing to you to express my dismay over the sorry state of East Lancaster Ave. As the co-owners of Marshall Grain, my husband and I recognize that the store has been an East side landmark for over 60 years. We greatly respect the historical role Marshall Grain has played in the Fort Worth community as the area has evolved from farming and ranching to suburban family neighborhoods with companion animals and backyard gardens.
Initially, we considered purchasing the property the store is located on and renovating the building. My personal vision was to create an ?“oasis within a desert of despair.?” The thinking was that beautifying our property would help pull the entire neighborhood up out of its doldrums. However, since purchasing the business from the Marshall family in 2005 it has become clear to us that we would be only be throwing our money away. Sadly, we are now considering moving the store to another location.
The neighborhood has deteriorated to the point where our customers tell us they are afraid to come to the store. Vagrants incessantly panhandle them and our employees. Our store has been broken into and robbed or shoplifted on several occasions. I myself have been verbally assaulted and physically threatened while attempting to walk down the street.
Meanwhile, no effort has been made by the city to redevelop the area. In fact, we have recently learned that plans are in the works to increase the number of homeless living in and around our area.
We were also very angry to discover that the city recently held ?“public?” meetings on the subject without ever informing us.
I personally have direct experience in working with homeless people, first at a homeless shelter for men, and then at a drop-in center for teens living on the street. I have also had the opportunity to contrast two radically different approaches to the homeless problem by the California cities of San Jose and San Francisco.
One over-riding fact is crystal clear: Most people who live on the street are there by choice.
Of course, there are some with mental or physcial disabilities who need to be placed in special long-term care programs. But the overwhelming majority of them are either: 1) drug addicts and/or alcoholics who refuse treatment, or 2) people who simply refuse to shoulder any personal or social responsibility. Members of both groups have been led by many activists to believe that they somehow have a ?“right?” to be homeless and live off the charity and tax dollars of others.
San Francisco provides us with the worst possible model of how to deal with homelessness. The city?’s philosophy has been to support the ?“right?” to be homeless. The city has more shelters than any other municipality in California. Yet many street people refuse to sleep in them because they claim ?“it isn?’t safe!?” The truth is, shelters have rules, and they don?’t want to follow any rules. With the absence of any vagrancy enforcement, the homeless are allowed to camp in parks and even directly on city sidewalks without fear of being molested by police. They urinate in public, terrorize tourists and carry signs demanding that their ?“rights?” be further extended.
Gee, it sounds like Fort Worth!
San Jose, by contrast, has a strong anti-vagrancy program that directs homeless people into job training programs, drug rehabilitation centers, mental health facilties, and ?– Dare I say it? Jail! Although it is the third largest city in California, it is also recognized as one of the safest in the nation. Homelessness continues to exist there. It is unrealistic to think it can be eliminated entirely. But I overwhelmingly prefer San Jose to San Francisco.
Homelessness is not a right. It is a blight. There is no benefit to the community in ?“supporting?” homelessness. The only sensible policy is to make every effort to eradicate it.
Yours truly,
Joyce Connelley
Marshall Grain Co.
Distribution:
By Marshall Grain Co.
I am writing to you to express my dismay over the sorry state of East Lancaster Ave. As the co-owners of Marshall Grain, my husband and I recognize that the store has been an East side landmark for over 60 years. We greatly respect the historical role Marshall Grain has played in the Fort Worth community as the area has evolved from farming and ranching to suburban family neighborhoods with companion animals and backyard gardens.
Initially, we considered purchasing the property the store is located on and renovating the building. My personal vision was to create an ?“oasis within a desert of despair.?” The thinking was that beautifying our property would help pull the entire neighborhood up out of its doldrums. However, since purchasing the business from the Marshall family in 2005 it has become clear to us that we would be only be throwing our money away. Sadly, we are now considering moving the store to another location.
The neighborhood has deteriorated to the point where our customers tell us they are afraid to come to the store. Vagrants incessantly panhandle them and our employees. Our store has been broken into and robbed or shoplifted on several occasions. I myself have been verbally assaulted and physically threatened while attempting to walk down the street.
Meanwhile, no effort has been made by the city to redevelop the area. In fact, we have recently learned that plans are in the works to increase the number of homeless living in and around our area.
We were also very angry to discover that the city recently held ?“public?” meetings on the subject without ever informing us.
I personally have direct experience in working with homeless people, first at a homeless shelter for men, and then at a drop-in center for teens living on the street. I have also had the opportunity to contrast two radically different approaches to the homeless problem by the California cities of San Jose and San Francisco.
One over-riding fact is crystal clear: Most people who live on the street are there by choice.
Of course, there are some with mental or physcial disabilities who need to be placed in special long-term care programs. But the overwhelming majority of them are either: 1) drug addicts and/or alcoholics who refuse treatment, or 2) people who simply refuse to shoulder any personal or social responsibility. Members of both groups have been led by many activists to believe that they somehow have a ?“right?” to be homeless and live off the charity and tax dollars of others.
San Francisco provides us with the worst possible model of how to deal with homelessness. The city?’s philosophy has been to support the ?“right?” to be homeless. The city has more shelters than any other municipality in California. Yet many street people refuse to sleep in them because they claim ?“it isn?’t safe!?” The truth is, shelters have rules, and they don?’t want to follow any rules. With the absence of any vagrancy enforcement, the homeless are allowed to camp in parks and even directly on city sidewalks without fear of being molested by police. They urinate in public, terrorize tourists and carry signs demanding that their ?“rights?” be further extended.
Gee, it sounds like Fort Worth!
San Jose, by contrast, has a strong anti-vagrancy program that directs homeless people into job training programs, drug rehabilitation centers, mental health facilties, and ?– Dare I say it? Jail! Although it is the third largest city in California, it is also recognized as one of the safest in the nation. Homelessness continues to exist there. It is unrealistic to think it can be eliminated entirely. But I overwhelmingly prefer San Jose to San Francisco.
Homelessness is not a right. It is a blight. There is no benefit to the community in ?“supporting?” homelessness. The only sensible policy is to make every effort to eradicate it.
Yours truly,
Joyce Connelley
Marshall Grain Co.
Distribution:
By Marshall Grain Co.
