News-Miner Editorial
Winter sanctuary
Community launches effort to create a damp shelter
Published Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!The recent effort to create a winter shelter that accepts people who have been drinking deserves encouragement. Working out the tough questions about how to do this won’t be easy, but it can be done and should be.
Last weekend began with a vigil Friday night for seven people who died from exposure last winter in Fairbanks. A shelter might not have saved all seven, but it could have offered another saving opportunity for them and spared their families uncounted grief.
On Saturday, a group of interested individuals discussed how to make the shelter happen.
It won’t be easy. There are good reasons that the existing homeless shelter, Fairbanks Rescue Mission, does not admit people under the influence. The shelter does good work, and no one should criticize it for that policy, which minimizes disruptions that distract from its attempts to help people.
A lack of shelter won’t stop chronically inebriated people from drinking. They are here and probably always will be. We need a place to help them make it through winter.
We do provide places to go when an obvious emergency is in progress or when the homeless person can get things together enough to enter treatment. Emergency response is extremely expensive, though, and treatment programs aren’t open at 1 a.m. on a 20-below-zero night.
Our neighbors to the south in Anchorage seem to have found a way to make a damp shelter work. The Brother Francis Homeless Shelter has dealt with the difficulties that arise from housing people who are alcohol-impaired. The shelter has earned broad community support as a result.
Here in Fairbanks, we could continue to shrug our shoulders and let our chronic inebriates stumble along that fine line between death and a ride to the emergency room. If the community continues to take that approach, though, too many people will continue to die.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
For once I agree with a DNM editorial. If Anchorage has figured out how to make it work, we can too.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
Ha ha! Brilliant!
Take the money they use to buy their booze and get them a bus ticket to Anchorage and let them stay in the shelter there.
Glock and wife - -
excellent!
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
glockmod23,no_moe_lemmings, wife228 and akguy how can all of you be so self centered , selfish and mean !!!! I think its a good idea and its needed here in fairbanks .
There have been damp shelters in Fairbanks in the past. Why where they closed down. Most likely after a period of time, the money dries up and so the doors were closed. Look what happen to the run away shelter for kids, after 25 years the organization was unable to justify to it's funding source continuance of government money and it ended. The governments do not fund damp shelters, so it will be up to the private sector to raise the money and keep this type of shelter operational. Let's try to keep it civil, it is not the chronic inebriates writing these letters or holding the rallies for this idea, so no need to attack them.
(This comment was removed by the Newsminer.com staff. Please see our User Agreement for further information.)
A damp shelter would be a welcome addition to downtown, providing a much-needed service.
I remember growing up in southcentral Alaska and there were certain inebriates in town. Often they would be hitchhiking. Most people knew their names and would look out for these folks out of their very human sense of compassion for fellow human beings. I notice an absence of humanity from the above posters.
booboobear,
Who's really being self centered? The people working for a living to support these ventures or the people drinking their lives away and holding no responsibility? Come on now... If they want to drink the day away, and expect help from everyone else, that's pretty damned selfish.
This discussion has run its course following last week's stories and editorial on this topic.
We have heard from the knee-jerk respondents who find the loss of human life acceptable -- "... better off dead", and "Let them die of exposure." We have also heard from those who realize this is not just about the chronic inebriates (CIs). It is about community, families, and friends who have no doubt done all they can; and have perhaps even lost touch with their CI kin. And no, knee-jerks, it is NOT the sole responsibility of friends and family to save their CI friends and family. It is arguable that some CIs are more resistant to help from loved ones than from a "program".
Someone wrote last week that a society can be judged on how it treats its least fortunate. Having worked with people through "Help Lines" and related social services in Fairbanks over some 35 years, I agree with those who say this (CI) is not about choice. CIs MAY have made a choice years ago, at a time when even they were not aware of how their physiology would handle "that old devil liquor". They perhaps tried it with friends who handled it just fine. Maybe they tried it when they were too young to know what would happen. How ever they became involved, they started down a slippery slope and they need help, not a death sentence.
Make no mistake, and this editorial says as much, a "damp shelter" is a slippery slopes as well. It is not always easy to save a life. There are other issues: Will a shelter give CIs a place to drink -- "enabling" them in effect? Will it provide a magnet for those who prey on CIs? What about liability for those who injure themselves or abuse others while at the facility? Who will staff it? How will it be funded? We have seen social services, like the old Fairbanks Crisis Line and some youth programs get a strong start, and even community funding, and then fade as interest waned. Is such a shelter sustainable?
As a community we have choice -- accept unnecessary death, or come up with a way to help keep those at risk alive. Hope spring eternal.
i'm a conservative that strongly believes in the "damp shelter" concept. a damp shelter should be paid for from a combination of alcohol tax money and private (churches) sources. i'd throw in an extra dime for a bottle of beer for this.
"Hope springs eternal." (fixing "spring").
CHOICE. You want a damp shelter then dig in your own pockets to pay for it. Keep government out of it...especially government dollars. Time for the organized christians to get their act together. Stop talking "love thy fellowman" and start organizing your pocketbooks to love the drunk so he/she can stay drunk.
And alcohol tax money, your sin tax, should not be there to keep folks drunk. When you go to your city council to ask for money to support your cause you are spending my money without my CHOICE.
How many of you think the downtown association would ever allow a damp shelter in downtown. Who do you think spearheads all these crazy ideas to conceal these people from downtown. They aren't concerned about the health of these people only the bottomline of the businesses downtown. No one is willing to say the one thing, what neighborhood in this entire community would allow a damp shelter to come in to their neighborhood?
My big question is: Where does the money come from? Who pays for this?
We do, through our tax dollars do.
Also, some of you completely ignored this article on homelessness. It totally shoots down your "alcohol/drug addiction leading to homelessness" theory. As well as the theory that the homeless were overwhelmingly raped as children.
http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=30617
Stop with the whole drinking/inebriation crap. It's pure economics, we have a failing society. These people drink because THEY WANT TO!! A damp shelter only provides a place for them to rest in between binges. It does not actually help. You religious do-gooders really piss me off with your ignorance on this issue. Stop creating excuses for sad individuals you really don't care about. Stop trying to receive Govt. handouts. Just stop! Take them into YOUR house and feed them and YOU give them a bed, that way YOU can pay for it!
You are being duped Fairbanks. Don't allow funds for this shelter. If you do, the problem will only grow, I've seen it happen.
No one is asking for tax dollars for this, at least not so far. The alarmist hand-wringing sounds more like denial and distraction. Taking care of the problem with a shelter is less expensive than taking care of it through law enforcement and emergency services. It is like maintaining your automobile: pay the maintenance guy for an oil change and tune up now, or pay him a whole lot more later, when the engine blows up from lack of care. FIgure it out.
This is not about religion. Religion is a distracting issue which, again, provides ammunition for denial. Various churches (look up "ecumenical") seem to be taking the point on this. Good for them. Something needs to be done, and it appears unlikely any of our mainstream fraternal groups will do it, though their members may participate through their church affiliations.
As far as economics go, NO ONE I know places an overwhelming "gotta-have-it-near-me" value on CIs in their neighborhood. Location is another side issue to distract and deny -- a simple-minded, knuckle-dragging, short-sighted diversion from the actual NEED. We are talking about a social issue; and it makes no sense for a society to think of any element of the population as disposable.
For my money a simple, heated shelter with separate accommodations for men and women, (basic cots and restrooms) -- I am not so sure showers are even necessary -- and screening so no weapons or booze enter the facility, would be adequate. We are not talking palatial here; quite the contrary. In fact, any facility or program should be monitored so that the do-gooders keep the facility in perspective. These things do have a way of growing which is why they ultimately fail.
This is only about getting people off the street and safe in the winter. Although some posters apparently feel otherwise, the point should be that we, as a community, DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO DIE, period.
booboobear said : glockmod23,no_moe_lemmings, wife228 and akguy how can all of you be so self centered , selfish and mean !!!! I think its a good idea and its needed here in fairbanks .
Glock Reply : booboobear, does this mean your Taking me Off your
"Christmas-Card List !! :)
Have a Good Day !
I have been in the situation for two years where the person I loe is a acholic. If he ended up in Fairbanks drunk in the winter I know he may not make it home. Weather it was dieing from the cold and being betten by a racist person or falling in the river And that isn't a comforting thought. I have taken in several people with acohol problems and given them all I could. I cant say it ever helped them but thier familys were verry gratefull. think about it (sorry about my spelling)
wife228....you are indeed a shell of a person. Your numerous posts are devoid of anything even resembling a human being who might have at least some level of compassion. If and when you someday become a person in need, whether it be due to cancer, your house being destroyed or whatever, and people rush to your side, I hope you think again about the many hurtful things you've said to and about others in your lifetime.
ecray: "Let them die of exposure. ... Let the weather take care of them and give the resources to people who deserve them (runaway teenagers, ...)
xxx
Oh, sure, let's build another shelter for runaway kids! Give them a place to go so that they can just take off any time they don't want to obey their parents. Now THAT is enabling.
There may be some kids who leave home because of abuse, but every one I have known about simply didn't want to obey his/her parents.
thewayiseeit said: You want a damp shelter then dig in your own pockets to pay for it. Keep government out of it...especially government dollars.
Wow, that's a good sentiment. It would be even better if we all lived in little bubbles never intersecting with one another. However, the inebriate on the street is going to cost YOU THE TAXPAYER one way or another, be it through increased police, ambulance calls (COSTS YOU MONEY) or jail time (COSTS YOU MONEY) or medicaid bills (COSTS YOU MONEY). Much like the bailout of the "free" market, YOU CAN PAY NOW OR YOU CAN PAY LATER.
Some people are so wrapped up in their inflated opinions of themselves that they forget, a few wrong turns could land them in a similar position! I'm not sure how I feel about the prospects of a damp shelter, but I do know that those of you who act so high & mighty should be ashamed of yourselves.
It doesn't sound like you read your own article, Mr. Green.
"serious problems since childhood are common causes among homeless people with 25% reporting childhood physical or sexual abuse, 22% reported they were physically assaulted and 7% sexually assaulted. It also states that 38% reported an alcohol problem and 26% reported a drug problem."
This is for homeless people - not chronic inebriates. And these are national statistics. We have a much more serious problem in Alaska. We have a multi-generational problem of alcoholics raising children who in turn become alcoholics because of things they had to endure at the hand of drunken parents.
We also have a generation of children and teenagers, both in Fairbanks and in the villages, that are already alcoholics and drug addicts. These kids entered into this lifestyle without any realization of where this path will take them ..... just like their parents and grandparents did.
Alcohol is demonic. It destroys and controls and robs the individual of the ability to think and to choose. No-one CHOOSES to become an alcoholic.
I've said it before, and I will say it again: If we keep them alive, some will one day find deliverance. It does happen. One "success story" - a redeemed human being - is worth all of the expense and effort.
To illistrate my point.....
"Minor possesion
Fairbanks police contacted a 12-year-old at a Fairbanks middle school Friday morning for possessing a bottle of alcohol, which the student had not consumed."
~ from today's police report
wow, this makes me dizzy just thinking about it.
So instead of fixing the real problem, alcoholics walking the streets(notice I do not refer to them as cronic inebriates) we are going to go with a band-aid solution of providing them a place to stay? This, in essence, encourages and enables folks to drink more. "Why worry, I'll stay at the CI facility, on someone else's dime".
I would must rather help provide the fundage to seek permanent help and rehabilitation.
JP_offroader-Honestly, I think that finding a warm place to sleep is the last thing that is on their minds...after a few bottles of Monarch. Some of you people are so hateful.
Bitter ugly people.
People who don't care to be part of the solution have that right. But hey should get out of the way of people who really do care.
tok242 expressed my opinion on this matter pretty well.
I am selfish and uncaring about chronic losers, but I still think the shelter may be a good idea to keep them out of the hospital ER where they will cost us even more.
Millions of dollars have been given to this community for treatment of chronic inebriates. At one point, there were case managers assigned to these people on a one to one bases to keep track of them and work with them. There were halfway houses for them. One local agency which does substance abuse treatment received millions of dollars for various programs for chronic inebriates over the years. These programs all have lost their funding. Why hasn't the public heard the reason why the government has pulled funding and closed these programs down? Instead of saying people are mean, maybe you should ask the agencies why they managed to lose the money to do this type of service.
Trust me. Unless the chronic inebriates drink in or right next to this shelter, they won't be able to get to there. Alcohol, 99% of the time, is a contributing factor with individuals presenting with hypothermia in this city. Furthermore, the religious organizations promoting this program should open up their places of worship to accommodate the homeless. In exchange, expect them to voluntarily contribute by assisting with building maintenance or assisting other members in their congregations. I also agree that the tax payers, oh, I mean non-exempted property owners, should not bear the cost of this project.
Still feel this is inhumane and the borough is responsible? Then let's stop fooling ourselves and finally implement a sales tax and force the native corporations to take some of the responsibility.
I cannot support a "damp" shelter, all it does is perpetuate the problem. I would much rather see the money go towards treatment and rehab facilities for those who actually want help so they can get it, get sober/clean and get off the streets.
By the way, speaking of the Rescue Mission, ask the guys in the labor unions from Anchorage and out of state how they use it as cheap housing while waiting for a union call. A couple of weeks free rent until that $20 plus an hour job comes up. These guys have great incomes and good homes, a few lies saves them hundreds in hotel cost.
The programs were worthless and the teachers needed more money.
I am confused. How it is the Native corporations should "take responsibility" for this problem? We are all residents of this community. I am appalled that anyone would suggest one set of corporate entities should carry the burden.
Hypothetical questions for the geniuses amongst us: If the liquor industry sells booze, should the liquor industry take responsibility for CIs? Or, ALL white corporations? Oh! That's right, they pay taxes, just like the Native corporations. If someone uses a gun in a crime, who is to blame; gunmakers, ALL gun owners, or certain ethnic groups? The nay-sayers reach deep to find reasons to NOT support a CI program. Someone might abuse the low-cost housing? And that's a reason NOT to have a program?
Strange how some posters are defensive and even abusive over a mere PROPOSAL motivated by the desire to save lives! As far as I can tell this editorial, and a handful of community folks are simply PROPOSING to keep people in our community from dying. That seems like an admirable quality to me; a worthy idea. Condemning a proposal, and a specific social subset, out-of-hand, seems cynical and hardhearted.
True, multi-million dollar rehab programs have lost funding. Perhaps the programs themselves did not work, or funding was abused, or there were no qualified providers, or such programs are out of fashion with funding agencies. Fine, bye-bye financially bloated rehab programs. But how can anyone say "It is acceptable that some folks die a preventable death since they do not seem as worthy as I." Nay-sayers! As I see it, in this situation, there would be none of the overhead of counselors or rehabilitation programs -- barebones facilities, an adequate shelter, that's all! (See earlier post.)
So far, I have not heard mention of any entity (borough, city, religious denomination, ad hoc volunteer group, existing agency) willing to take responsibility for any program. Those who seem to think human life is disposable seem oddly certain that a shelter would be of no value. Are they such ardent students of human behavior they can predict every eventuality? I have seen enough of their awkward grammar, poor spelling, and misuse of language (And not just minor typographical errors) to know they have no such powers.
Are such people, you know, those of limited humanity and evident lack of intellectual capacity, ummmm, disposable? No! They made choices to limit their educations and perspectives, and yet there is room for them in this community. But those chronic inebriates? Nope! No hope for them, apparently. Sheesh, who ARE you people?
FreeDarfur: "These programs all have lost their funding. Why hasn't the public heard the reason why the government has pulled funding and closed these programs down?"
xxxxx
It is obvious that you do not understand how grant funding works. Grants are given for specific fiscal periods, and at the end of that fiscal period, they end. Agencies such as the federal Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) have a certain amount of money available, with many different agencies requesting their share of funding. A program may be funded for, say, five years, and not receive the award for the following five years because the granting agency decided to fund a different program.
That is not the equivalent of a program being closed down or an agency "losing" their funding because of some fault of the agency.
These drunks, I call them "Weebles", are a disgrace to Alaska. They chose along time ago to drink. Now all they think about is to get "blotto".
If there were a place for them to go, I would hope they put it in a locale the farthest away from any liquor store. It will probably be empty most of the time because they are so damn lazy to get there(or use money to get a cab instead of buying more booze).
The only "real" way to solve this problem completely is to outlaw the sale of alcohol here. But "in reality", that would just never happen.
So, we know that a weeble + booze = more weebles weebeling along Cushman Street shouting profanities, getting into fights, stealing things and generally disgracing this already disgraced city.
I say build a compound with fifty foot walls, include a distillery, make them pay their dividend up for an exclusive years membership to "Alcohol land". That would at least keep them out of our sight and safe in the winter..........
Yo, tok242, I don't have a solution for the chronic drunks. And when someone comes up with one more power to them. But every solution we paid millions for has not been the solution. We still have chronic homeless drunks. If members of my community want to have a damp house for these folks more power to them. I won't spend a dime on it and I don't want the government to spend a dime on it either. It should be my choice and not some elected jockey passing around my check book.
Never say impossible! impossible is a trap of it's own opinion.
AlaskaPhil,
Well spoken. I disagree with some points though. My main point of contention is that you say naysayers seem to think life is disposable. I see where you can get that, but I would contend that it is the alcoholics who choose to drink in the cold, where alcohol thins out your blood, who have no place to stay, are acting like their own life is disposable.
It's not me putting their life on the line because of their drinking. It's not me paying for or handing them a bottle. So therefore I say it is not me putting their life in danger. I highly doubt I am putting anyones life in danger by expecting a human being to take care of their physical needs.
Let me share a quick story. One day when driving through the drive-thru at a local heart attack shack(Mc Hamburgers, lets call it) I am with a friend who sees a homeless man with a sign that says WILL WORK FOR FOOD. My friend drives back through the drive-thru and buys the homeless man a combo meal and a drink. As we roll through the intersection, we stop so my friend can give the man the meal. We hand it to him, he opens up the bag and says "I don't eat french fries, and can I get a chicken sandwich instead?"
My question, and the moral of the story is the answer; WHY?
JP_offroader, I'm sure there are people like that. But I have a friend who, more than once, picked up a discarded half-eaten hamburger from the ground, and was grateful for it. It helped to keep him alive until he could come to the place where he learned that God loved him, and he came to know the Lord, and he is now a sober, happy, contributing member of the community.
Wisechief, you are right. It is not impossible. People DO find freedom and deliverance
JP-Thanks for a rational and reasoned response. Some of the "naysayers" have written that CIs are "... better off dead", and "Let them die of exposure." I did not infer that. They wrote it. My concern is that while CIs/alcoholics made a choice a long time ago, as CIs they are no longer in complete control. Their choices are more difficult, particularly under the influence. Sad, but not a capital offense.
Example: If a person chooses to walk into traffic, perhaps not looking both ways, perhaps not realizing the speed of the oncoming vehicles, would you try and stop him or her? Would you yell, run into traffic to grab them, try to save a life? Or would you watch, silent and awestruck by what was about to happen? It pains me that we would not try SOMETHING to stop preventable deaths. I have known CIs who, in a moment of clarity, finally made good choices, and stayed clean and sober. Maybe it is more a moral than functional road, but I would err on the side of humanity even if, on the surface, it seemed like a futile gesture.
I understand your hamburger anecdote. My mother used to say "Beggars can't be choosers!" To the beggar in that case I would say, "Huh! Let me look." And then take the bag and drive off. But there you would be dealing with someone who is aware (sober) enough to be picky. So screw them! I am a minimalist in all this. Someone begging for food can go to the mission. They can accept an offer of food. A CI, freezing in the cold, needs basic shelter.
The dialog here, not withstanding those whom I quoted earlier, is important. People who are talking about a shelter are talking about a PROPOSAL, which means there is some concern, and some thought, by some folks. The conclusions and outcomes of the proposal are not clear; but rational discussion (absent all the name calling, denials, distractions, and political agendas) is important. Thanks again.
I see no distinction between a "CI" who passes out in a snowbank and freezes to death and a "CI" who passes out in a warm bed, having a house and car does not make a person less of a "CI", or more of a person for that matter.
At least a homeless "CI" does not drive a two ton vehicle around endangering other peoples lives, your not going to kill anybody by walking to your campsite drunk.
People kill people all the time because they have a "need" to drive to their house drunk.
Alcohol tax in Alaska-
liquor is $5.6/per gallon
"table wine" is $0.85/per gallon
Beer is a whopping $0.35/per gallon
Increase the taxes to these amounts-
Liquor- $200.00/per gallon
"table wine"- $150.00/per gallon
Beer- $100.00/per gallon
How many people do you think will be able to afford that extra drink that will put them over the legal driving limit then?
Or how many people will be able to afford cases of beer bottles they can break all over the Chena rec. area gravel bars?
Maybe the girl that ran over that young child would not have been able to afford to get as drunk as she was.
Maybe then people that don't work and live off of handouts won't be able to get drunk enough to pass out in a snowbank or maybe they would never have become homeless in the first place.
But no, let's just keep the most dangerous drug in America legal and cheaper than gasoline, or is alcohol the REAL fuel of this country?
Too bad that can't really happen, Lost. Unfortunately, those of us who don't drink must be outnumbered by those who do. Or, maybe the drinkers are a noisier "squeeky wheel." Factor in those who make a living selling liquor, and no-one is willing to seriously suggest making alcohol illegal or taxing it out of existence.
You always hear the argument that "Prohibition didn't work." WHO SAYS it didn't work?! Sure, there were bootleggers, and there was homebrew. But did we have ANYTHING like we have now??? We not only have the CI problem, but look at our teenagers!!! What hope does the upcoming generation of Alaskana have, with so many already addicted as young as 12, 13, 14?
Let's clear up an error or two - (freedafur's needs to do homework before posting)
There are two case managers working successfully to help about 60 people with incredibly complex lives due to their histories with alcohol and mental illness. The case managers salaries are paid by a partnership of local healthcare agencies. Their work has saved lives and reduced the revolving door that these people get stuck in. Because of their work, we've met many courageous men and women who have become sober and are gratefully living healthier lives - trying to give back.
Please quit griping about the supposed tax dollars "given" to fairbanks for this problem. Less than 19 cents on the dollar collected in alcohol tax in alaska goes to treatment and prevention and only a tiny portion of the state's healthcare budget is dedicated to treatment services. Fairbanks has never garnered the fair-share for support for needed services that we merit - our interior delegation needs to focus on the demands placed on us as a hub in the northern region. Our services are swamped and unlike our "neighbors to the south" we do not support our healthcare programs with local tax dollars. It is nearly impossible to attract and retain professionals to do this needed work. Marshall support - quite lobbing cheap shots at people and programs trying to keep this community healthy and safe.
This everyone's-on-the-take and conspiracy-theory mentality that passes for fact sharing is very tiresome.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.