Reader warning! I’m going long on this post.
Back in June, when I first heard about the proposal to turn Waban’s former Engine 6 into a group home for the chronically homeless, I thought this was going to be some serious trouble. I had no direct connection myself. I don’t live in the neighborhood. I’ve never been personally involved with housing issues or homelessness. I’m not particularly proud to admit it butmy main interest in the issue was a morbid curiosity in watching hot button emotional fights over issues that I have no personal stake in.
Occasionally when one of these hot-button issues break out, I’ve gone so far as to attend a public meeting for pure entertainment value. Yes, as I say, its not a very admirable trait, as my wife is only too happy to point that out. So back in June I went out one night to the Waban Library for the 2nd of the Engine 6 meetings. I got there late, the whole neighborhood was full of cars and the library was filled to capacity.
The temperature and tempers in the room were high that night. The meeting was chaired by the three local Ward 5 aldermen (Deb Crossley, John Rice and Brian Yates). Even though none of the aldermen had any previous involvement in putting the Engine 6 proposal together, they organized the meeting because it was clear that a significant number of their ward 5 constituents were not at all happy about the project. They framed the meeting as a “listening meeting” where they would gather all the unanswered questions, concerns, and issues of the neighborhood and bring them back to city hall They made it clear that this meeting was only about asking questions The following week a meeting was already scheduled at City Hall where the proponents would answer all the concerns that were raised.
Once the questions started, the temperature rose even more. The crowd, overall, was clearly against the Engine 8 proposal though there were some who spoke in favor. As I settled in, I realized that there were a few friends in the crowd, who I like and admire, who were there to speak out passionately against the proposal. One of them gave one of the nights most poignant and powerful arguments against Engine 6, rooted in his family’s personal experiences. There were a number of others like him, speaking out calmly, rationally and strongly against the proposal for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately though there were plenty of other that were shouting, jeering, heckling and generally getting a bit ugly. The aldermen, who had come with the intention of being the messengers back to City Hall, ended up being the target of much of the anger and frustration of the crowd. All in all, it was not a pretty site and I ended up feeling a bit ashamed of my voyeuristic motivation.
Two days later, the mayor pulled the plug on the whole project. The scheduled next meeting, where the proponents would be able to answer all the questions raised was cancelled. All sorts of reasonable questions were raised that night, but mixed in with them were some of the worst kind of misinformation and fear-mongering. The upshot of it all is that none of the questions were answered and none of the misinformation was ever corrected.
Even though I had only become involved in this as a spectator, I came home realizing how personal and emotional this was for all sides. When the plug was pulled, I thought it was the worst of all outcomes. The questions were never answered, the misinformation was never corrected and the only lesson to be learned is that there’s something to be gained by getting loud and ugly.
This past week I heard there was a meeting scheduled tonight by the proponents of the project. I was surprised because I thought the proposal was now dead. It turns out that the purchase-and-sale agreement on the property doesn’t expire until Oct 3. The proponents are still hoping to turn it around. A few people asked if I was going to attend the meeting and I said no.
——————
Many years ago my wife and I were foster parents and had a steady stream of kids coming and going. One summer, thirteen years ago, we took four sisters, aged 3, 5, 7, and 10 camping for a week in Wellfleet down the Cape. They were in another foster home and we took them on vacation and gave the foster parents a break. We had never had four kids at one time before. It was one of the most exhausting weeks of our whole life but it sure was a lot of fun and they were wonderful and very funny kids.
Not long after that stay, they returned home to their biological parents and that was the last we heard … until today. My wife just got a call from the 2nd eldest who is now 21 years old. She tracked us down and called up to reminisce about that week 13 years ago. The family is all doing well and the eldest is going to round up the other three (now aged 23, 18, and 16) and we’ll see them soon for a fun visit of stories of their week in the woods.
After hearing all of this today, I remembered the details of those kids’ situation. Their parents lost their apartment and ended up homeless. Eventually they ended up in a shelter. The parents couldn’t keep their kids safe and so they were taken into care by the state. About a month or two after our vacation together we heard from the foster parents that the girls had been re-united with their parents. The parents had gotten an apartment with some help from the state, and the family was back together.
Now it’s 13 years later, the family’s doing great. They’ve been together ever since. The 21 year old has moved out and has her own place and the other three are living at home with their parents. It suddenly dawned on me this afternoon that this whole family saga was directly connected to tonight’s Engine 6 meeting. So I went to tonight’s meeting after all.
——————
Tonight’s meeting was at the Eliot Church in Newton Corner and organized by the Supporters of Engine 6. Roughly 180-200 people attended. I arrived late as three representatives from Pine Street Inn talked in detail about the proposal, who would live there, what the rules are, how it would be run, etc. Many of the concerns of those Waban residents last June were addressed clearly for the first time. Much of the earlier misinformation was dispelled. A few random details from my notes:
* In the last year, 45 formerly Newton residents have gone through Pine Street Inn at one time or another
* Pine Street Inn runs a large number (I think its 25) similar group homes in many different neighborhood over the last 25 or so years.
* Many of the homes are in similar wealthy neighborhoods (Brookline, South End).
* Engine 6 would have 10 units. Nine for residents, one for the House Manager who would spend the night there. During the day there’d be Case Managers on site as well as Facility Managers on a regular basis. The building would never be unattended.
* Virtually all of the existing Pine St homes peacefully coexist in their neighborhoods while not causing problems in the vicinity. If you go into these neighborhoods and see the houses, they’re invisible, there’s no guys hanging around loitering in the nearby streets. There’s no higher incidence of crime nearby.
* Both Pine St and Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership would screen residents for Engine 6. The criteria they’d most focus on would be relatively self-sufficiency and those with a high likelihood of success in this environment.
* There are specific homes that Pine St runs in conjunction with the state for residents with severe mental problems. This would not be one of those homes. It’s not for any kind of seriously mentally ill patients.
* The home was never intended to house sex offenders. Federal and State law prohibit any Level 2 or 3 sex offenders from this type of housing. Under those rules it would be possible to assign a Level 1 sex offender to Engine 6 though that was never their intention. Having heard the neighborhood concerns, Pine St is more than happy to formally preclude all Level 1 sex offenders. All applicants will be both CORI’ed (crime) and SORI’ed (sex offenses)
Following the presentation by the Pine Street staff. Two current residents of a similar Pine Street group home spoke. Their stories were powerful, compelling and personal. They told the story of how four walls and a roof transformed their entire existence. They talked about what they do, how they live in their home and in their community. They presented real faces, personalities, and stories of what sort of people these new residents would be.
Next up was a neighbor who lives next door to a Pine St group home in Jamaica Plain. He’s a professional guy who works at home and so he sees what goes on all day long right out his window. He’s lived next door for years. His neighbors are pleasant, friendly and have never caused any problems since they arrived years ago. The neighborhood has lower crime than the surrounding areas of Jamaica Plain.
Next up, questions submitted on cards by the audience were read and answered (I only have a few notes)
* “Would Newton residents be given priority?” – They said they would be willing to set aside 1/2 the spots for Newton residents.
* “Could agreements made now (i.e. no level 1 sex offenders) be revoked in the future?” They said that on many of the houses they have built over the years they have entered into specific terms and agreements with the surrounding neighborhood. Never since they started in 1984 have they reneged on any of those agreements.
Finally, a teenage student from Waban closed the evening with an impassioned call to action. She said that she believes fervently that Waban can and is and should be the kind of place that can welcome these residents. She called on everyone in attendance to make it happen – to write to the mayor, write to the Tab, talk to other people and try to turn this decision around before Oct 3. So that’s what I’m trying to do.
Nice commentary.
I think in your second fact. I thought Pine St said they run 36 group homes, not 25. Everything else was right on. Nice job summing up.
I find it interesting and very ironic that in an overwhelmingly Democratic, liberal community such as Newton, that citizens come out in droves against such a project. Let me guess, if they put this project out on the Waltham line by the Rumford Street recycling depot, that might be OK, right?
I remember ten years ago something similar was proposed in Cambridge, near beautiful people’s homes such as Julia Child et al. Boy oh boy, did they oppose the project.
Sorry to parrot Howie Carr here, but this is proof positive that the liberal refrain is “Do as I say, not as I do.”
The fact that City Hall was not involved tells us that this project, as the Zo coroner would say: is not only merely dead, but clearly and sincerely dead. Thus it isn’t surprising that the residents with concerns weren’t the attendees.
Now, how does this background give comfort about one’s home investment? Anyone looking to buy in Waban, a prominent label for a neighborhood, is going to google “Waban” find the words “chronically homeless” and have the same negative images the summer meeting had. Instant devaluation.
Respectfully, the family Jerry had contact with personally was not then and is not now a candidate for this home. While formerly homeless, they represent the typical brand of homelessness in that they found assistance and moved on. This home is for those “chronically homeless” that by definition are single individuals, not families, where the person through mental illness, drugs of other reasons has not been able to move through assistance to live on their own.
Anyone got the name of the Brookline home so we can check it out?
To be fair, a very large crowd also turned out in support of the project. For the earlier meeting, as I mentioned, a large number of the speakers raised perfectly reasonable questikns that hadn’t been answered up to that point. They were the sort of questiin that anyone would want to know the answers before something like this was built.
I beleive most of those questions have been answered and am optimistic that many (but certainly not all) of those folks may come around.
So no, I don’t think its all about simple liberal hypocrisy though there may some of that mixed in.
Jerry, thanks for posting. It was good to see you there last night.
Hoss, I wish you had come to listen to what the supporters of Engine 6 had to say, what they were denied the opportunity to say when the Mayor refused to allow the community meeting that the aldermen from Ward 5 had arranged. Because your preconceptions about who Engine 6 would serve could not be farther off. Pine Street has a record of success with supported residential environments.
This is no accident, as the tenant selection process is designed to choose residents who will thrive with the support provided. When people hear “chronically homeless,” a bubble goes up of someone who is seriously mentally ill who cannot take care of themselves. Had you been there last night, you would have heard from a many who became chronically homeless when he lost his job and experienced serious physical and medical problems, and was at an age that made it hard for him to find gainful employment or even search for work. You would also have heard from a woman who left home at 13 years old to escape an abusive home and lived on the streets and became dependent on alcohol, who, because she has permanent housing has not been able to put her life back together again and stay sober.
At the very least, I hope that you will keep your mind and your heart open to hearing the true stories of chronically homeless people that Pine Street provides supported residences for, instead of falling back on stereotypes about homeless people living among us.
Great post Jerry. Thanks.
Did anyone ask if — assuming the project were to move forward — these nine people will want to be moved from where they are currently located to Waban? If I were a Waban resident, I’d want to know that my new neighbors want to be there.
Thank you Jerry – well done.
Ted Hess-Mahan — Leaving aside my heart (which is mostly warm), my head says that this neighborhood is valued at a few billion dollars. Affecting that value by 2% or whatever is not a minor sum. Why are we in this situation? You say it’s opportunistically. It’s a nine bed opportunity that risks millions.
Jerry,
I agree that it is not a cut and dry hypocrisy issue, and sorry if I over-simplified my argument. However, I would love to know what % of people who are fretting over a 2% devaluation, had no problem voting for a federal and state government administration that is not shy about raising my income taxes.
I love this community and all it offers, but the politics, most times, is infuriating.
It sounds like this was a productive meeting, with important information about the process and project made clear and critical questions answered by the developer and Pine Street. Going back over the timeline, if I remember correctly, the first public meetings on this were in June (which were for comments and questions only) with the only answers to come at meeting scheduled for the last week of June, despite some kind of deadline during the first week of July – not much time to ensure that the facts were all out there, to bring residents into the process, and to revise the proposal in response to concerns. Why didn’t the developer and Pine Street *lead* with the information/answers much earlier in the process?
@tricia – yes, I think the whole public process was badly handled. I think that was a big part of why the reaction from neighbors was so strong – I.e. the not ubreasonable suspicion that they were being snookered. For most people, the first they heard about the project was when a final decision was only weeks away.
Jerry, good post.
Overall, this Auburndale resident has to agree with West Newtonite’s observations.
I normally don’t see myself agreeing with anything Tricia says but in this case she made a good point about the meeting. It seemed to be a productive meeting but how come the developer and Pine Street did not *lead* with the information/answers much earlier in the process?
Did the mayor send anyone from his office to the meeting?
@Gail – Not as far as I know … but there were a lot of people there
Ted, maybe you can shed more light on this but didn’t the City ask Pine Street and MetroWest NOT to present at the first meeting?
The developer did, however, present at the Planning & Development Board meeting where the funds were approved. These meetings are open to the public and are announced by and posted by City Hall. People tend not to pay attention until they are forced to. Requirements for funding approval are pretty specific in terms of notification and public hearings. There is a specified period for public comment, and until the mayor shut the door on the public comment period, this process was being conducted as prescribed.
I feel that the public needs to understand that the process did not fail; the mayor failed us all by circumventing the process, shutting it down before it was supposed to be terminated, and not allowing the speakers who were present last evening to present to the neighbors.
Gail – no, there was no one from City Hall, and few elected officials. Thank you to Deb Crossley for being there – the only candidate from that race.
Thank you Jerry for this beautifully written summary and more.
I don’t live in Waban but could understand the concerns raised by some when this first came up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would be much very comfortable with the project after the answers that were provided., having lived by similar housing in the past.
NN, after both the Newton Housing Partnership and the Planning Board recommended approval, there is a public comment process that usually lasts 30 days. It is important to note that the NHP and PB are the advisory bodies that are charged with the task of reviewing and making recommendations whether to approve CDBG funding for affordable housing applications. In addition to being specifically designated for this advisory role, these bodies include members who have specific expertise in the field of affordable housing, and it is virtually unprecedented for a Mayor to reject their recommendations of support for those reasons.
The aldermen from the ward arranged for community meetings to respond to questions and concerns raised by some of the neighbors. Only two of the three community meetings actually took place. Representatives of the proponents, Metro West and Pine Street, were at the first meeting but were not invited or allowed to speak at the second community meeting. Metro West and Pine Street were invited to participate, answer questions and provide information at the third community meeting which the Mayor then cancelled.
Jerry, thank you so much for your heartfelt and thorough review of last night’s event. As one of the organizers, I truly enjoyed reading about your perspective and valued the opportunity for others who were unable to attend to hear about what they missed.
I do have one small clarification I want to make, just to be sure that information being disseminated is factual- in one of your bullet points you stated this:
* Both Pine St and MetroWest would screen residents for Engine 6. The criteria they’d most focus on would be relatively self-sufficiency and those with a high likelihood of success in this environment.
However, it is not MetroWest (the developer of this property) who would conduct the second screening, that would be done by Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership. It’s an easy mixup, as the names start similarly, but they are two separate organizations with different functions.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify. And thanks again for sharing your perspective!
Was there any press at the meeting? There’s nothing on Patch, wickedlocalnewton or yourtown/newton.
What a breath of fresh air last night’s meeting provided. Finally the community got to hear directly from Metro West and Pine Street about their intentions, experience and answers to many fears and questions. Many mistaken impressions and rumors were dispelled, mentioned by Jerry above. The tone and atmosphere of the entire meeting was civil, open, informative, genuine, respectful. Newton would do well with more open, well-prepared meetings like this one. Thanks to the Supporters of Engine 6 for putting on such a powerful event.
A bit of a reality check please.
The folks from MetroWest & Pine St inn were, I am told by many sources, quite obnoxious at the first public meeting held on this project. So much so that when the second meeting was held, there were not invited. That second meeting was designed to elicit as much feedback and questions as possible that could then be taken back to the developers.
I was at that second meeting [though I don’t live in Waban]. I walked away from that meeting utterly convinced that neither the developers, nor the city representatives, had a firm handle on this project, with only about 10 days before the mayor was supposed to render a verdict. For me, had the mayor signed off on this at that stage I would have been shocked and disappointed.
I made no judgment at that time on the overall merits of the proposal; the loose ends were that significant. And perhaps the developers have come up with great answers on the various issues then raised, but there was and is a process by which that information was to be be provided, and it’s not in a public meeting outside the confines of the administration. The developers have chosen to ignore that route. Doesn’t fly with me.
Who represented the people who do not favor this project?
Dan Fahey says, “And perhaps the developers have come up with great answers on the various issues then raised, but there was and is a process by which that information was to be be provided, and it’s not in a public meeting outside the confines of the administration. ”
It would be difficult for them to provide the information in any other forum at this point, Dan, since the Mayor cut off discussion prior to the end of the mandated public comment period. Since the developers were not allowed to speak at the second meeting, I am not surprised that you did not get a sense of their “firm handle” on the situation. Do you not agree that they should be given the opportunity to state their case? The developers did not choose this route – the mayor chose it for them by silencing them.
@Gail- To respond to your question about press, as far as we are aware there were representatives from NewTV (they filmed the entire meeting) and the Newton Tab present.
It’s ridiculous that this is a Waban issue. If someone wanted to do this in any other village I would be against it as well and support the village against it. I live in Newton first, Waban second.
I’m not a neighbor. either. I went to the Waban Library as a candidate for Mayor and felt just like Jerry, Dan and a lot of others. The presntation was amateur hour. It was rushed and uninformative. But, unlike the Mayor, I felt it was important to have the open meeting.
As time goes by, even before last night, I am feeling more and more comfortable with the project. I still feel we need to include the neighbors at the point where the proposal is being drafted, so there won’t be any surprises like there was with this project.
Last night’s presentation was terrific, but I am a cynical person and I feel something is wrong when both sides aren’t there making a presentation. That would be my one critique is that both sides should have given there perspectives. I don’t know how you choose amongst a splintered group of neighbors, but I always feel better when both sides are represented.
Kim,
This is a statewide issue. The state mandates that they want each city/town to have 10% affordable housing. If we don’t get there, we are susceptible to projects like Avalon with very little control. Once we get to the 10%, we can let the dice fall where they may, but I don’t want another Avalon thrust upon us….do you???
Have you seen the plan for the apartments? It’s right on the website. This project calls for 10 unrelated strangers to live in one 6100 square foot building in apartments of extremely limited size. Two apartments are under 300 square feet (269 sf and 275 sf), several others are well under 400 sf. (303 sf, 366 sf, and 382 sf) and three other Group Studio apartments are well under 500 sf (409 sf, 433 sf, 492 sf).
In my opinion, one option is to create truly livable spaces by reducing the number of residents and increasing the square footage of each apartment so that it’s within range of a typical studio apartment.
Jane, I would defer to the folks from Pine Street Inn and to their judgement since they manage 30+ similar developments in Brookline and Boston. I cannot possibly have their degree of knowledge about what works.
This project will be Newton’s and each of us has some sense of how much space is livable, and this just feels too cramped for 10 unrelated people. I had no idea about the size of the apartments until just today when I got onto the website and to check out the site plan. I suspect that having 9 tiny apartments, rather than 6 typical sized studios is a financial decision rather than one made in the best interest of the people who would reside there.
Hoss, as long as I have been involved in affordable housing, opponents always make the argument about diminution in property values. Studies show that this is simply not the case. Indeed, a newly renovated building or dwelling can actually increase property values.
With respect to information, here are the pertinent facts:
Pine Street residences are well maintained and do not devalue abutting properties. For example, the abutters to 300 Shawmut, in the South End, include condos assessed at $1.1 million and $1.2 million.
In Newton, 82 Lincoln and 24 Central (not Pine Street residences) both provide affordable housing, and abutter assessed values are $1.1 million and $802,000.
At a community meeting on June 20, a Newton police representative stated that there has never been a police call linked to residents of existing supportive housing in the city.
It is a gross generalization to suggest that Engine 6 would diminish property values. At last night’s meeting, Pine Street’s representatives noted that the case workers and property managers work together so that they can address issues before they become a problem. A careful, two-tier tenant selection process, simple rules like not allowing residents to hang out or smoke cigarettes out front, and providing the requisite support to help them get and stay involved in gainful employment or other activity (for residents who are disabled or seniors) means that once the residence opens most people will not even be aware that formerly homeless people are living there.
It should be noted that the Housing Partnership, which includes individuals who know something about affordable housing and creating permanent housing for homeless persons, approved the plan. These are folks who have a lot of knowledge and experience and are charged with providing their expert advice to the Mayor for allocation of CDBG funding. And the Housing Partnerhsip recommended that this proposal be funded.
Jane,
If you are currently homeless, and someone offers you, presumably free of charge, a clean, and I’d guess furnished living space of anywhere from 275 to 500 sq. ft., would you think this is stingy? Why don’t we buy each of them a house on West Newton Hill? And, by the way, a LARGE number of people of means in New York City live in apartments of similar size or not a lot bigger, and pay pretty substantial rents for them.
Ted Hess-Mahan — I can’t debate the value point simply because there is no rationalization to Waban’s level of valuation. It’s vapor-value that neither you or I can point to anything to support it. I just know that if I wanted to buy Waban Market and transfer it to a Burger King, I’d hit the same argument.
Do you happen to know the Brookline home for chronically homeless that Jerry mentioned? If I’m reading the HUD reports correctly, Brookline has 28 beds for chronically homeless and Newton has 24 beds. (Obviously each has many more beds for transitional homeless and formerly homeless — just checking what I think I’m reading.)
I lived in Newton for 13 years, over a decade ago, then moved my family (yes, it happens) to Waltham, the suggested location for the proposed housing. Thanks, Jerry, for covering this. @Jane, this size of apartment and this model for on-site supervision has worked very well in other types of group situations. Separate but a part of the group. I expect that most people in Newton would find these units much too cramped. But keep in mind where one starts, once homeless. If you go to a shelter, you have to leave early the next morning, with your stuff. If you can get to Waltham, you can go to the Community Day Center to stay warm and dry, and learn some things, before heading back to the shelter for the night – with your stuff. (Look them up on Facebook and come to their Gala on Nov. 2 – I hope the citizens of Newton would raise big bucks for this organization, after all, it’s what one previous Engine 6 meeting attendee thinks should happen.) Anyway, my point is, the homeless have to travel light, so don’t judge whether something is workable by your own personal space needs.
to Jane’s concern about the size of the units: the amount of space a person needs or wants to live in varies greatly according to geography, means, and lifestyle that it may be easy for some of us living in larger square footages in Newton to make assumptions about others’ living quarter sizes. Good examples above by Barry Cohen about the size of NYC dwellings, and consider both urban areas Japan, China, many many other countries. I have a close relative living for over ten years in a Paul Sullivan managed home in JP, in far less space than these units will have, sharing a bedroom and all other rooms- she is happy, productive, functional, friendly, polite, sociable, involved in life, working. Think too about the enormous need being filled by SROs (single room occupancy, such as those at many YMCAs) in Newton and elsewhere, both as transitional and permanent forms of housing, with similar and less square footage.
@Hoss – A quick search turned up that the Pine Street’s Brookline home that they were talking about last night is at 1754 Beacon near Washington Sq. They urged people to come by, have a look, walk around their similar properties in Brookline, Jamaica Plain and the South End.
It’s not my personal needs at issue. I really just thought that Newton would be more concerned about the living conditions of the new residents and was surprised that the actual site plan had never been raised as a concern.
I was one of the attendees at last night’s Engine 6 meeting. Too bad we didn’t have this meeting back in May. It was a well organized, well attended and civil event. It was a great opportunity to hear directly from the Pine Street Inn Director about the specific selection process, and how these kinds of projects have been received in other communities. I was especially moved by the personal narratives of the two formerly homeless people who have been so well served by the Pine Street Inn. At one time Paul owned his own business, owned a home and 3 vehicles. But he had no insurance when he fell seriously ill and was forced to sell everything to pay his medical bills. Cheryl lived in an abusive home and ran away at 13. Years of addiction and living on the street has clearly taken a toll on her health. Both Paul and Cheryl I was told would be representative of the client served by the Engine 6 Project; middle aged, struggling with health problems that limit their ability to support themselves but who can still contribute to the community. I realized at the end of this meeting that I would not mind having either Paul or Cheryl as a neighbor.
Jerry,
What a great post. You almost convinced me. I mean that sincerely. Your argument was stronger than anything else I’ve heard. Balanced view. Great stuff. I look forward to more of this kind of stuff here on V14!
I know I will be slammed hard by some bloggers for these comments; however here goes.
I was at the Monday night meeting to better understand the issues. If Paul and Cheryl do represent the expected clients for Engine 6, can someone explain to me why walking to the T or Waban Market is considered a viable solution. Both of them required the use of a cane and required assistance getting from their front row seats to the podium. Walking any distance on a regular basis would seem to be a major challenge for them. If their services are in Boston, why separate them so far away?
Also, help me with the dollars. My understanding is that the city has about $4 million dollars worth of requests for which it has about $2 million dollars. Should we not be assessing this project in comparison to the viabilty of the other projects and not as an isolated opportunity? Maybe the mayor and his staff have already done this, and determined other projects more worthy. I do not know the answers to these questions.
Good questions Patrick. You reminded me that I never got an answer to the following question. Does anyone know if the residents of Engine 6 would want to be relocated? I ask because I question whether people would appreciate being displaced from a shelter in Boston to a much more remote location in Newton.
Gail, as previous poster pointed out, you cannot live at a shelter. It is my understanding that you can sleep at a center but you have to leave during the day and take everything you own with you, everyday, and you come back in the evening, to spend the night. The people at a shelter are not residents.
That should read ” you can sleep at a shelter…..” Oooops.
@Gail- A similar question was asked at the forum on Monday night and answered by Lyndia Downie from Pine Street Inn. (Basically, the answer was yes, especially because most of the residents would likely have ties to Newton.) I believe the questions and answers will be up on the supportengine6.org website soon, and last I heard New TV was also going to be airing at least part of the event, so you might be able to get the full text surrounding that question.