Stop funding SHARE and seek better solutions for the homeless

I suggest you stop funding SHARE.


SHARE is an activist organization, more concerned with advancing their own agenda and profiting from the city than with their supposed mission of bettering the homeless. SHARE recently moved a shelter into the Wallingford neighborhood this week through what has become a practiced model, of selecting a church to serve as a front (hiding behind the legislation that allows churches to behave as they wish within a neighborhood absent due process), forcing out existing (taxpaying) businesses, and dividing the community in a media furor. These shelters report a 20-year success record, but have no statistics to back that up, are entirely self-policing by their own residents, with no oversight by any party who doesn’t already have a vested interest in a positive outcome. SHARE reports a practice of “dumping” unruly residents ejected from the shelter on Metro buses. Research has revealed statements made by SHARE to appease the (Wallingford) neighborhood have turned out to be lies.


As a citizen and a taxpayer, I am concerned that an organization that lies about its operating practices, lacks transparency and oversight, and abuses other city resources is still eligible for receiving funding from the city. If they are lying about their operating practices, how can we be assured as taxpayers that the money we grant them is going to actual services rather than padding the pockets of its operators?


I would also like the city to examine its practice of shifting the responsibility of housing the homeless from in-city facilities that are better equipped with services to meet the needs of their occupancy, to churches in outlying neighborhoods that lack the police coverage, clinics, food, showers, and other basic facilities that are necessary to serve the homeless population. Is this really efficient? Or does the spreading of police (and other public safety) resources required to respond to incidents in outlying communities that are ill-equipped to handle the influx of a transient population result in greater expenditure overall?


NOTE: This idea was originally submitted by another Community Member 15 days ago, but someone hacked into ideascale and deleted it, along with every other idea critical of SHARE. I found a cached copy in my browser, and have reposted, but unfortunately the over 100 comments made by community members are most likely lost, unless ideascale can restore the item. SHAME ON WHOEVER DELETED THE ORIGINAL POST!



-148 votes
Idea No. 360