Dear Mayor John Engen: Final thoughts on the Poverello Center move
I was copied on a letter from Westsider Greg Martin. In the letter, he said he hopes Mayor John Engen reads his final thoughts on the arduous process of finding a new location for the Poverello Center.
Mayor Engen, I hope that you know that regardless of what the outcome of the Poverello’s decision is, that you have some work to do in our neighborhood to restore trust not only in you, but in city government in general. We were saddened by your admission that you did not see the Trail’s End location as being part of our neighborhood. It only reinforces the perception that we are not a high priority to the city and I hope you can work with us to regain a sense of trust.
I’m pasting Martin’s letter below in full. Reading his insightful and heartfelt account makes me hope more folks like him get involved in city government.
The Poverello board must be close to making a decision. I’m anxious for them to do so because I think it means a new chapter for a lot of parties, not least for the folks the Pov serves. As far as news goes, I’m looking forward to covering the march to build a new place, the fundraising, and the design, which folks at the shelter have said will accommodate changes in operation too.
It’ll be great if folks who are going to be the Pov’s neighbors, either downtowners, Westsiders, or otherwise, work with the shelter staff to find ways to make the location work.
There’s no question the Poverello and Mayor Engen misstepped when they didn’t include the public in their first quests to find a site. Plans backfired. The process this time wasn’t perfect either, but I think once the board chooses, the generous approach will be to accept the choice instead of fight it. And Missoula is generous. It’ll help if the Pov is committed to being open with neighbors about its clients and operations, too.
I’m not writing this, in case you’re wondering, with any clues about the decision the Poverello board will make. I’ve talked with the board president and another board member in recent weeks, and it sounds to me like they’re genuinely examining every angle to go down a path that works best for their clients.
I’m so ready for them to pull the trigger. Meantime, here’s Martin’s letter:
The Poverello relocation issue has been agonizing for all involved.
Westside neighbors who criticized the process and about the suitability of the Trail’s End site have often been criticized with straw man arguments and tagged as unsympathetic to the plight of the poor and homeless. Regrettably, we have also, at times, engaged in fear mongering, particularly with the very cloudy issue of sexual offenders. No one has always acted entirely appropriately (myself included) during this difficult process.
Me and my westside neighbors and friends who have spoken against the Trail’s End location are not people with positions of influence in city government or connections with either the charitable nonprofit community or the downtown merchants (and their fundraising capabilities). Despite the fact that Mayor Engen admirably created a community forum process, we often feel isolated and harbor the notion that we have little influence and our voices are an inconvenience to the civil servants and Poverello board members who understandably want a simple, relatively easy process. The fact that half of the working group were focused on the Trail’s End location as early as January without our knowledge only heightens our conspiratorial thinking. This may not be fair, but it is true.
I am also painfully aware of how much pressure the Poverello is under and how difficult it is for them to consistently hear from neighbors (both downtown and in the westside) that they do not want them nearby. The fact that their facility is in such bad shape and their service burden is growing as the economy continues to sputter only aggravates matters. This will forever weigh on my conscience as I’ve spoken out against the Trail’s End location.
But please remember, we were not informed about the Trail’s End location before it was near a buy-sell position. We were then told it was taken off the table and then in a few short weeks it was back as one of three “equal” spots. We were thankful for, but did not have any hand in the logistics of, the community forum process that ensued. There was only one representative in the working group who lives in the neighborhood that was being considered.
Many in that working group have expressed disappointment that some of us criticized the process. In an editorial in the paper, 11 of the 12 said they did not feel the process was rushed despite the fact that they only had four weeks to vet sites because of a deadline from the VA. How can that not be a rushed process?
Sadly, this response leads many of us to the pessimistic conclusion that respect for community involvement is only valued when the community involved knows its place and only expresses gratitude to those who create the environment and the rules of the game.
The platitudes gushing about the community forums feel overstated to me as someone who attended both with the hope that an actual conversation would take place. We were not able to engage in a Q and A with the Poverello board and we rarely had the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with people with different perspectives. It was a respectful forum and I expected nothing less. But I wanted something more – I wanted to get at the truth. And the truth can really only be discovered in a genuine dialogue in which each of our opinions and assumptions are held to scrutiny. This did not happen. Whenever someone would offer a perspective that could be argued, it was not our place, we were told, to speak up and challenge that point of view. There was a limited amount of time and we were only to speak to the volunteers writing down our opinions, not the people holding different opinions than ourselves.
Clearly managing a situation where a dialogue could occur with that number of people was challenging, but I think something could have been done.
The end process resulted in a “matrix” that created an appearance of equality in the three locations. One key part of the matrix was the list of distances to vital services for Poverello clients. All locations were laid out with the appearance of equality among them. Most glaringly to me, the bus transfer station was placed right in the middle of all the other locations. No indication that such a vital location was weighted heavier was given. It doesn’t really matter if a service is .5 miles or 2 miles away, if the person requires bus service to get there. Considering the numbers of Poverello clients who are disabled, more difficulty getting to the bus transfer station made all other locations more problematic, regardless of their actual distance from the Poverello. Simply being on the bus line on Broadway will require people to cross the street either to get on or get off the bus, no such imposition exists for the transfer station.
The numbers of residents near each location was wrong in the breakdown. When this was pointed out, we were told that it didn’t make any difference in the grand scheme of things. But both the MDA and attorney Richard Volinkaty used those faulty numbers as key elements in their reasons for supporting the Trail’s End location.
The matrix also created an equivalency with the category of schools in the area of each spot. Both the Trail’s End site and the Ryman Street location were shown to be within a close radius of a school. The “school” in the downtown is a day care center with limited children and strictly enforced child to teacher ratios. The school by the Trail’s End is Lowell School, an open, public school of more than 280 kids who play in a public park and playground accessible to the public at all times of the day. There is nothing equivalent about those two schools.
It is dispiriting that we have received several ad hominen attacks that our motivations are based on irrational fear of who the Poverello serves and a lack of empathy for people living with tremendous hardship. As parents with close ties to the school, I am aware of the economic vulnerability at work in our neighborhood. It’s the children I see and interact with on a daily basis as a parent of this neighborhood that informs and guides my conviction on this matter. I do not fear legions of sexual predators roaming our park, I do not fear seeing or interacting with homeless people in need of help. I do worry about the perception of our neighborhood, I do worry about the traffic patterns of those turned away from the Poverello and I do worry about the intense segmentation of inequality in one part of town.
I am troubled that the Poverello has, on more than one occasion, appeared to eschew responsibility for those they turn away. Admittedly, those people are not who the Poverello are trying to help and their existence won’t go away if there were no Poverello. But they can’t pretend that their facility does not draw a disruptive contingent to their location. I hope that I am misunderstanding their view and that they will be willing to help monitor the traffic flows of people they turn away if they move tot he Trail’s End.
It is difficult to face criticisms of lacking sympathy when it seems apparent that there are entities in the downtown who want the Poverello to move for more self-interested reasons than they state. I saw very few of them at the community forums. How can a group exerting such perceived pressure escape the public participation process that we willingly became a part of? Why are their motivations not questioned?
Finally, I want to say that this issue has been far more painful and divisive than it needed to be. The way this process unfolded was full of blunders. The subsequent recriminations and backbiting, however, falls on all of us.
But, Mayor Engen, I hope that you know that regardless of what the outcome of the Poverello’s decision is, that you have some work to do in our neighborhood to restore trust not only in you, but in city government in general. We were saddened by your admission that you did not see the Trail’s End location as being part of our neighborhood. It only reinforces the perception that we are not a high priority to the city and I hope you can work with us to regain a sense of trust.
I apologize for the length of this, but I wanted to put all my thoughts down, despite the fact that it’s clearly past the point of being influential. If nothing else, perhaps it can be something that can be reflected upon for future issues.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Greg Martin
– Keila Szpaller
November 2nd, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Dear Mr. Martin (and a little bit to Keila: “There’s no question the Poverello and Mayor Engen misstepped when they didn’t include the public in their first quests to find a site.” What?!?): Really? REALLY???
1) I’ve not once understood why the Mayor’s office gets to have ANY influence over this decision by the Pov. The Pov is a non-profit, free to provide its services wherever zoning allows its operations – just like any other business or organization. What obligation does the Mayor (or the Pov) have to perform a community crap-on, NIMBY-fest about the Pov or any other private operation?
2) Further, suggesting the Pov shirks responsibility for the homeless who are turned away even though it “draw[s] a disruptive contingent to their location”… What the —- is wrong with people?
Sorry, Mr. Martin. I have no sympathy for your concerns and look forward to not seeing those bad-homeless-person-problems occur. Further, people have gone WAAAAY out of their way to involve the community in the operations and location of the Pov. Casinos, liquor stores, and bars: NO PROBLEM! Keep em coming! People seeking food and shelter: NOOOOOO! Mayor Engen, DO SOMETHING! NIMBY, NIMBY, NIMBY!
How about this: Volunteer at the Pov. Give a homeless person a dollar – or put it in a jar if interacting with homeless people scares you. Do something. Exorcising the homeless demons from your precious neighborhood does no good at all.
Sincerely,
Ryan Morton
November 2nd, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Dear Ryan,
The mayor has been involved in this process from the beginning. He personally was involved in facilitating a group of city and non profit leaders to discuss a possible relocation of the Poverello that resulted, with his approval at the time, in their selection of the Trail’s End bar. When opposition from neighbors was voiced, the mayor – to his credit – asked the Poverello to withdraw from the plan so that a community forum could occur. Kate Gadbaw of the Poverello agreed.
You are incorrect that the mayor is not involved in this process and that his support or lack of is not paramount in this decision.
As for the rest of your character attacks, I refuse to indulge you in your own bigotry. I have impugned nobody’s dignity in this process. It’s unfortunate that the same can not be said for you.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:15 pm
My statement was that the Mayor need not be involved – I know he has been. Appealing to the Mayor is still inappropriate in my view.
What character attacks? I’m upset – very upset – over the “concerns” about homeless people. I’m sure you’re a nice person full of dignity, but that’s not what this is about. It’s about ideas that are fundamentally flawed being perpetuated day after day. I truly believe that if you spent more time with the homeless of Missoula, you’re views would change. Learn to separate criticisms of your ideas from personal attacks please. Thanks.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Ryan – I spent a year of my life after graduation working for the Salvation Army, interacting on a daily basis with the very same people the Poverello serves. I know that the vast majority of them are struggling, decent people. I also know that there are contingent of substance abusers and disruptive people – those who would steal donations from our back or would urinate in the alley. They are a part of this community and I do not fear nor despise them. But I also do not feel that their presence in a low-income neighborhood near school children and a public park utilized by our mostly low-income neighbors is the proper location.
By referring to me as a nimby implies that I am intolerant of homelessness or poverty. As you don’t know me, you don’t know the children I have worked with at Lowell elementary who live in extreme poverty and social unrest, is part of the painful result from us taking the position we do. You generalize about our motivations and you don’t seek to truly understand the nuances and the difficulty of our position. And you are not the only one who embodies that judgementalism. If only you could see how stereotypically your remarks come across even as you so readily believe I’m motivated by my on stereotypes.
November 2nd, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Ryan, please don’t call folks names or I’ll come to Helena and throttle you. (Empty threat, but still … ) I think one reason the mayor got involved in the first place was the community piece was missing. First, the idea was to go to the 3:16, and that blew up in the neighborhood, and then plan was to go to the funeral home on Spruce, and that didn’t work out. The mayor asked the Pov to back off, and he pledged to help find a location. To his credit, when the Trail’s End was selected and folks said they wanted to be involved in the decision, he apologized, and with the Pov, launched an open process. Yeah, the Pov doesn’t have an obligation to consult with anyone, but it’s going to need support from the community when it comes time to raise funds, so it only makes sense to get folks on board early, or at least in the loop. And I could be wrong, but my sense is that this Poverello board views the Pov as an institution that belongs to the community, a way people here take care of each other, and members genuinely want to do right by people in Missoula. And yeah, they have gone out of their way this time listening to folks. The other approach didn’t work. As you point out, the mayor doesn’t have to be involved, and I’d bet he takes more of a back seat once the dust settles on the location and fundraising and a new director is firmly in place.
-Keila
November 2nd, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I love this blog. I need to read it more. The icons are particularly wonderous.
November 2nd, 2011 at 4:24 pm
I like being red and having lipstick. Ok, that’s my last comment.
November 2nd, 2011 at 4:37 pm
NIMBY? Not in my back yard: I forgot that was used as a name calling term too. My apologies for that (only). I meant it as short hand. I’ll add periods to the acronym next time: N.I.M.B.Y.
Greg: “contingent of substance abusers and disruptive people – those who would steal donations from our back or would urinate in the alley” 1) could just as easily describe downtown nighttime revelers… and 2) it says loads about the prejudice the Pov faces in gaining acceptance in this community – so unfair to them – that you are perpetuating without good cause. Sex offenders, substance abusers, and criminals are not restricted to classes or categories of people. You probably live near way more than the Pov “attracts” (”come look at our sexy dormitory style bedrooms…” LOL!). And what does the income levels of your neighborhood have to do with anything?
Keila: You know it’s far more likely that I’ll be in Missoula and track you down. Either way, you can throttle me anytime and then we can have a beer afterward…Yeah, anyhoo…
November 2nd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Ryan,
If you attended the community forums, you would have been informed about the 11% of the homeless population in Missoula who are responsible for the bulk of the disruptions created around d the Poverello. Officer Bob, himself, referred to them as “the incorrigbles.” Those individuals have either been banned from shelter at the Pov or choose to sleep outside. If you are unaware of their existence, I would invite you to take a stroll around the county courthouse and talk with them. I have. As have other people in the neighborhood. One group I encountered who were heavily intoxicated one Saturday morning, screaming expletives to each other all said they have gone to the Poverello for food. One told me she had been banned. This is a real segment of the homeless population, whose existence is documented in the homeless needs assessment. It is not just something I am conjuring up in my mind. The Poverello has correctly stated that this group is not who they serve and they are not representative of the vast majority of the people who are helped by’the Poverello. I fully agree with them. The contentious issue revolves around the question of whether or not this group will move to’the Poverello if they relocate. It is more than likely that they will still spend time downtown, but we believe there is a good chance that they will come to the Poverello for meals. If the Povs current policies remain, any intoxicated and/or disruptive individuals will be asked to leave. Where will they go? The Westside park and Lowell School are just three blocks away. I’m fully aware that alcoholism and criminality is not restricted to the homeless, but there are quantifiable social issues that result from chronically homeless individuals. Their current proximity to the police department and other social services has helped keep’the downtown an eclectic, vibrant area. The downtown is our gathering place, the one part of town we all are part of. If homelessness and poverty are a community issue, I believe Missoula would be better served by having the Poverello remain in that community center. You may not care about concentrations of poverty in certain segments of town, but there is much sociological research suggesting that the greater the concentration of poverty in a specific geographical location, the mre challenging the Environ,ent is for those at-risk indivuals and families. They become more easily overlooked, health and social outcomes are poorer.
November 2nd, 2011 at 9:52 pm
This is another one of those issues that crops up in Missoula from time to time that proves former Chamber of Commerce Executive David Owens’ observation that “people of good will, who love Missoula, can disagree.” No one sets out to serve the homeless and hungry with “let’s wreck Missoula or one of its neighborhoods” at the top of its To-Do list. Parents and residents who are concerned about the safety of their children and their neighborhood do not think homeless people are evil and undeserving of our help.
City Club Missoula has invited the Poverello Center to make a presentation to the community about their programs and their hunt for a new home. City Club Missoula is a place to listen, to learn and to ask questions in a civil atmosphere. The City Club Missoula luncheon–which will occur Monday, November 14 at 11:30 at the Holiday Inn at the Park—is open to the public. All are welcome but seating will be given on a priority basis to those who have made a reservation. Reservations can be made through the City Club Missoula website: http://www.cityclubmissoula.org.
November 2nd, 2011 at 11:00 pm
This exchange proves former Missoula Chamber Executive David Owens’ observation “People who love Missoula, people of good will can disagree.” Wrecking a Missoula or any of its neighborhoods was never at the top of the Poverello Board’s To-Do List. Most people in our neighborhoods believe people who are hungry and/or homeless are not evil, but are deserving of our compassion. Still, the location of the Poverello Center remains a knot we haven’t fully unraveled yet.
City Club Missoula has invited the Poverello Center to present a program on its mission, needs, clientele, search for a home, etc. on November 14 at 11:30a.m. at the Holiday Inn Parkside. City Club Missoula is a place where information is exchanged in a civil, open environment where listening, learning and asking questions is encouraged. The public is welcome to attend, although seating is given on a priority basis to those who have made reservations. The easiest way to do that is through the City Club Missoula website at http://www.cityclubmissoula.org.
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:16 am
Ok, Greg. Practice what you preach or I will start calling you names without apology.
Bottom line: the Pov is targeted because of who they serve; the homeless targeted because of who they are. The public policy and public opinion is supporting that view: “Hey, let’s take an already vulnerable, powerless segment of out population, criminalize them even though only a minority cause problems (hey, officer bob said so himself!), and do everything in our power to keep them away from us (’cause if we don’t over-protect our children, they might become socialists or something).”
“Chronically homeless?” So now we’re medicalizing/diseasing the population? Wow. Every tool in the toolbox is being pulled out to marginalize them. And to think, I almost took the day off from news and social media.
Also, don’t worry, the homeless won’t leave the downtown just because the Pov moves.
#OccupySchoolsByHomeless? Really? I went to St. Joe’s and didn’t see a single homeless person cause any trouble at the school or at St. Francis’s soup kitchen.
“They become more easily overlooked, health and social outcomes are poorer.” Really? Cause it sounds like the professionals in town – like the Pov employees – support the new location. Why would they compromise their clients?
November 3rd, 2011 at 8:20 am
Oh, and yeah, I agree their are correlations between Poverty and various other problems. That neighborhood, however, hardly fits the bill despite truly needy families. And the Pov provides services not permanent housing (they offer transitional or temporary housing through facilities other than the downtown center – yet we never hear problems with the residences in their neighborhoods…hmmm…) so suggesting it “concentrates” poverty is silly.
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:11 am
Ryan … I think you miss Missoula! And if the Pov does choose the Trail’s End, those folks will be lucky to have a neighbor as open as Greg to help with the transition.
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:25 am
Ryan,
Read the homeless needs assessment and quarrel with them about the terminology of “chronically homeless”. Here is a passage, but I recommend you read the entire report. And understand that I fully agree and understand the findings of that report.
“Survey design was also informed by current research in the study of homelessness. Different patterns of homelessness have been identified based on duration and frequency. The idea that there are different patterns of homelessness challenges the myth that all homeless people fit a common stereotype: a middleaged
to older man who is frequently unemployed; often mentally ill, handicapped, or an abuser of substances; and who exhibits little or no attachment to common values of social solidarity such as family, workplace, or membership in unions or organizations. This typology of homelessness differentiates the
following groups:
1. Transitional: This group’s members experience only one or two episodes of homelessness, are likely to be younger, and are least likely among the homeless population to have mental health,
substance abuse, or major medical problems. They are often recent members of the precariously housed population who lost housing as a result of unemployment, marital discord, or some other catastrophic event.
2. Episodic: This group comprises individuals who frequently move in and out of homelessness. According to the literature, this group is likely to be young and to experience chronic
unemployment, medical, mental health, and substance abuse problems. Time outside of shelters may be spent in hospitals, detoxification centers, jails, or on the streets.
3. Chronic: This group best fits the stereotype of what used to be called “the skid-row homeless.” Shelter use is generally more long term than strictly for emergency purposes. These individuals are most likely older and have been unemployed longer and can suffer from disabilities and substance
abuse problems.
Research on large urban samples of homeless people has indicated that the transitional homeless account for approximately 80% of sheltered adults, while the episodic and chronic homeless account for 9% and 11%, respectively.”
As for practicing what I preach. Please enlighten me on my failings there.
Again to respond to your arguments about our neighborhood – the Trail’s End bar is right next to a battered women’s shelter (which we support), an assisted living community and a low-income housing neighborhood. North of that is a neighborhood with an average household income (from the most recent census data) of $19,000 per year compared to the Missoula average of $30,000 per year. The southern border of our neighborhood on Broadway, as you well know, is beset with numerous seedy motels and liquor stores. I love my neighborhood, I love that we live with people from all walks of life and I love that the YWCA is right next to us. But you can reach a tipping point of social stress – and while you refuse to believe that there are people who come to the Pov who create disturbances around their facility – we think the small contingent of disruptive transients butting directly up with our school and the neighborhood park is asking us to shoulder too much of Missoula’s economically stressed burden.
PS – I can already predict your mockery at this.
November 3rd, 2011 at 9:48 am
It would be mocking if I actually thought what I said was funny.
Social scientists (and doctors and therapists and politicians and newspapers and so on) regularly use terminology that marginalizes people by medicalizing and diseasing groups of people. That doesn’t make it ok. While “chronic” can simply be defined as long lasting, it’s quite clear how the report uses the word and how people use the word commonly.
And I read the assessment when it came out. You’re assuming things about me that aren’t true yet get upset when you think I’m doing it to you.
The truth is: I don’t care who you are, and it makes no difference to me. I would say (and often do) the same things to my parents, the Mayor, Keila, or whomever. And I’m not posting to change your mind as that would be futile (just like talking to my parents about politics oddly enough), I’m posting for the others reading so hopefully they don’t leave thinking it’s ok for you to say the things you say.
About your neighborhood, all the more reason to put the Pov there around other services and housing opportunities. And it’s not like they live there in anywhere near the same fashion you live in the neighborhood. And I think it’s bizarre that you “love that the YWCA is right next to us” but you don’t have the same feelings about the Pov. Your perceived social stress from the Pov is unfounded.
Keila: of course I miss Missoula. I’m sure Greg is a nice person – maybe even an open person. That doesn’t make things right.
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:15 am
I have posted information twice now [which has not appeared here]on how this issue will be hashed out at City Club Missoula on Monday, Npovember 14 at 11:30 at the Holiday Inn Parkside. The Poverellow Center will make a presentation about its mission and the search for a new location. The public is welcome to listen, learn and ask questions. Priority for space at the event will be given to those with reservations. To make a reservation, visit http://www.cityclubmissoula.org.
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:32 am
Sorry, Geoff. For some reason, the comments got stuffed into the spam queue.
November 3rd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Thanks Geoff – I will try to attend!
November 4th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
NIMBY, or N.I.M.B.Y. , was originally used as a pejorative to describe persons’s, or groups, who opposed new projects in their neighborhood, or “back yard”. The term marginalizes persons opposed to projects, such as freeways, expansion of an airport, mining projects, power plants and large shopping centers as a liberal elite, unconcerned about the general public good and the jobs and economic benefits these projects would create for the lower and middle working class. NIMBY as a pejorative, over the last 30 years, has been very successful in not only turning public opinion against anyone who opposes a project, but in forcing the opponents of a project to defend themselves of the charge that they are elitists. Paradoxically, as Greg points out with the Poverello Center, the Downtown neighborhood, has escaped the NIMBY label being applied to them. In this case, it only applies to the Westside neighborhood.
The Poverello Center located at the Trail’s End site should be part of a City discussion, the size building and the proposed number of Poverello residents on the combined lots of 1106 and 1112 W. Broadway are going to be difficult to accommodate without zoning variances from the City of Missoula. I know the Poverello Center is restricted by finances and the VA grant deadline, but in possibly choosing a site outside the Central Business District of Downtown, there are zoning requirements for both off-street parking and open land that may restrict the Poverello Center from building the facility they envision on the property of the former Trail’s End Bar. If the Trails’ End site becomes the only option for the Poverello Center, then any potential zoning variances for the building and property, should be part of the public discussion. The Poverello Center does have a legal right to locate where they choose, but in doing so, they should justify that the public good outweighs any legal concerns about the property they have chosen.
I was dismayed at the Poverello Center meeting in September, that one of reasons given in our group discussion for locating the Poverello Center out of Downtown, was that the Downtown business community would not financially support a Downtown Poverello location. What made this affirmation of a West Broadway location more egregious was that this statement went unchallenged in the discussion. I believed that our Homeowner’s Association concerns, that I represent as a Board Member were being set aside by the Poverello Center and the United Way in order to secure Downtown funding and support for a new facility outside of Downtown. I do hope from Keila and Geoff’s statements, that the Poverello Center is actually looking beyond financial and political expediency and considering the many implications of their decision on a Poverello location. Whether it is only public perception,or a reality, the Poverello Center location and the size of the facility, will have a social and financial impact on a neighborhood and a School for many years to come. I am glad to hear that the Poverello Board, hopefully the City, and perhaps even some in Downtown are considering this and trying to answer these questions in their decision making process.