Monday, January 09, 2006

Open Letter to Crossroads Community Church about CityLink

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Dear Brian Tome, Senior Pastor, Crossroads Community Church:

I send this Open Letter to inquire about your position on the CityLink center which has been raising some controversy among certain segments of our City.

Nick Spencer, an area politician and downtown business owner, recently had this to say:

For those who live in the area for the proposed CityLink, it is frustrating when people from more affluent Cincinnati neighborhoods decide to push more social service agencies into their neighborhoods—while never including such services in areas like Hyde Park or Mt. Lookout, for just two examples.

What is your position on this?  Do you think some of the neighborhoods served by your church (like Oakley, Hyde Park, etc.) should house more social service centers as a ministry to the disadvantaged?

How would you respond to the allegation that your charitable actions suffer from a NIMBY attitude?

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter.  Everyone hear at The Cincinnati Beacon is eager to study your reply.

Respectfully,

The Dean of Cincinnati

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

Nate Livingston says:
09 Jan 2006  at  11:29 am | #

Dean,

The opposition to CityLink is ridiculous! You don’t locate social service agencies in areas like Hyde Park and Mt. Lookout because the people needing those services don’t live in those areas. One of the main purposes of CityLink is to consolidate certain services so that low income people—who usually don’t have transportation—don’t have to run all over the city to get the services they need.

Furthermore, certain white people like Nick Spencer are freely commenting on this project without first bothering to get the facts. The West End CityLink center will be linked to other agencies. For example, CityCure has a nice building in Mt. Auburn. That facility won’t close. Instead, CityCure will have a spot in the new facility while maintaining their current facility.  The two centers will be linked.

I find it quite interesting (and bothersome) that people who are themselves new to the West End and Over The Rhine want to keep other people from coming into those neighborhoods.  Can anyone explain why OTR—a community whose leadership valiantly fought to rid itself from an oversaturation of bars and stores with liquor permits—needs Spencer’s bar there?  Why didn’t Nick establish his business in Hyde Park or Mt. Lookout?!  And why did the City and State of Ohio ignore the community’s opposition to granting Spencer and his other alcohol-peddling friends licenses when it is clear these bars have been a huge reason why the neighborhood is in such bad shape?

Nate Livingston says:
09 Jan 2006  at  11:39 am | #

Let me add that the Enquirer and the main people opposing CityLink are doing so because they supported David Pepper for Mayor and he lost. They want to link Mayor Mallory to CityLink and hand him a defeat.

1. Kimberly and Christopher McCarty both endorsed Pepper for Mayor. They are the primary agitators against CityLink.

2. The former director of the West End Health Center, Wendell Walker, also endorsed Pepper. The West End Health Center now opposes the CityLink project because they understand that the health and dental services won’t be restricted to ex-cons (as the Enquirer would have you believe) and fear the “competition” will put them out of business. So, the same people who supported Wendell Walker now oppose CityLink.

No one wants to ask this question but I will. Having organized campaigns, I know the signs, mailings, and flyers from the anti-CityLink people cost money. Where is that money coming from? Is a disgruntled, failed, mayoral candidate funding this venture? Think about it!

Nate Livingston says:
09 Jan 2006  at  11:40 am | #

And why don’t the people who oppose this project provide an alternative plan, with funding, for the site. How will a vacant lot be better for the neighborhood than the CityLink project? This whole thing is silly!

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
09 Jan 2006  at  12:19 pm | #

I agree with you, but I thought I would try to see what happens when I submitted one of Nick’s complaints as a question to one of the organizations his complaints target…

K says:
09 Jan 2006  at  12:28 pm | #

One of the main purposes of CityLink is to consolidate certain services so that low income people—who usually don’t have transportation—don’t have to run all over the city to get the services they need.

That’s a very good point, Nate, and I think the alternative that CityLink opponents have in mind is OTR. OTR seems to be the ideological dumping ground for low-income-oriented services.

The West End Health Center now opposes the CityLink project because they understand that the health and dental services won’t be restricted to ex-cons (as the Enquirer would have you believe) and fear the “competition” will put them out of business.

Another very good point. The City-run health centers are swamped and strapped for cash. Despite their status as being one of the most comprehensive in the region, the City has been reluctant to properly fund them. I don’t think that a restriction to ex-convicts is in anyone’s best interest, and I’m glad that CityLink recognizes this.

One point that you didn’t expound upon, Nate, is the benefit that CityLink will bring to the non-homeless. Everyone, Jason included, envisions an army of the homeless descending on the West End. (The homeless might actually be productive members of society once they get back on their feet; not all homeless are mentally challenged or otherwise unemployable.) The CityLink center benefits the entire pre-existing low-income population of the West End, and the health services are vital. A ghastly proportion of Cincinnatians are without basic vision, dental, or other health coverage. From my understanding CityLink will be one step towards addressing that need, and it’s a worthwhile goal. The other services provided may be just as valuable, if not more.

Most truly good ideas are bitterly opposed at first, but later recognized (after implementation) as universally beneficial. I suspect that part of the opposition to CityLink is a bias against the low-income and/or the homeless, which is pretty common and easy to get away with, but wrong nonetheless.

Quim says:
09 Jan 2006  at  12:42 pm | #

A representative of CityLink appeared on the Dan Hurley show on Ch 12 Sunday.
For all of CityLinks “research” she seemed woefully ignorant of any social service agencies already in the area.
As far as people’s concerns over safety, she claimed the facility would have adequate security.
Fine, what about the areas off-campus ?
I walk to work near the brewery district every day. I can deal with the hookers, they are fairly benign, but I don’t need to deal with any more aggressive dealers & crazy people who may or may not be armed.
CityLink calims they want to attract 35 - 40,000 people a year to their facility. This is not dealing with the locals in need. This is entirely different. They can locate anywhere if they intend to attract people from the entire tristate.
One of the biggest problems, in my unprofessional opinion, is the recidivism that is typical when addicts comtinue to live with their fellow addicts. It would make more sense to me to have facilities scattered about the tri-state than to concentrate people into one place.
Trying to make this a race issue is a load of crap but I know you guys will.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
09 Jan 2006  at  12:50 pm | #

I still think City Link should occupy some of the many empty storefronts on Fourth Street! This would call attention to the blight of downtown and offer affordable space to all of the “human services”. Just think how City Council will react when the homeless and downtrodden complain about downtown parking fees!

Nate Livingston says:
09 Jan 2006  at  01:13 pm | #

A representative of CityLink appeared on the Dan Hurley show on Ch 12 Sunday.
For all of CityLinks “research” she seemed woefully ignorant of any social service agencies already in the area.

I saw that interview too and thought CityLink’s rep did a terrible job! That doesn’t mean the project is bad though. Furthermore, I don’t think Dan Hurley did a good job of researching the project either. For example, he asked about the Free Store and whether CityLink would work with them. (Many don’t know that the Free Store does more than provide food, but that was Hurley’s angle.) Anyway, there’s a food bank right down the street from the proposed CityLink site. I can tell you that the CityLink people are determined to work with other existing social service agencies, even if they aren’t all housed at the West End facility.

One of the biggest problems, in my unprofessional opinion, is the recidivism that is typical when addicts comtinue to live with their fellow addicts. It would make more sense to me to have facilities scattered about the tri-state than to concentrate people into one place.

The anti-CityLink people have been good at distorting what CityLink is all about and convincing people that this will be another Drop Inn Center. This isn’t the case. From what I know, the Gospel City Mission is the only part of the project that has anything to do with housing. It’s a small transitiional housing program. The people are screened before they get admitted. To get in, they can’t have outstanding warrants. They can’t be sex offenders. And in many transitional housing programs, they can’t have been convicted of any violent offense. Just last week, Congressman Steve Chabot donated $5000 to the Joseph House which is a transitional housing program for military veterans.

I know some people don’t think race has anything to do with this, but I disagree. Race is ONE of MANY issues here. Another is politics. And another is white liberalism and their intolerance. But don’t get me started on white liberals….

Patriot says:
09 Jan 2006  at  09:06 pm | #

Please get started on white liberals. Tell us how their so much worse than black liberals. (I’m assuming they must be.)

I would love to see you and the Dean talk about black racism for a change. I’m not saying that there aren’t white people that are racist. I just wonder if you would talk about racism from a different angle for a change. Is racism color blind?

Maybe we’ll find some new insights.

Small Transitional Housing Program says:
10 Jan 2006  at  09:11 pm | #

To Nate, 40,000 square feet of tranistional housing is a small transitional housing program.  And the 40,000 people that CityLink will serve are all living in the West End, apparently uncounted in the last census.  This is a racial issue.  The issue is big white money and 3CDC relocating violently ill psychotic people right next to three black schools and a black neighborhood so that rich people can buy Condos.

Nate is from Northside.  He hasn’t pushed for CityLink there.  Not in his backyard.  You have to wonder why the people from CityLink have been working closely with Nate Livingston and not with the Pastors of the West End.  Nate is unstable, and he isn’t even a West End resident.  I guess they want any mouthpiece they can get.

Nate Livingston says:
10 Jan 2006  at  10:05 pm | #

These anti-CityLink people are so busy trying to twist the facts they can’t pay attention. The post above is a good example of how the anti-CityLink try to confuse people and launch personal attacks. Thank God it hasn’t worked.

To Nate, 40,000 square feet of tranistional housing is a small transitional housing program.

The amount of space alloted to the transitional housing program is irrelevant. Many Cincinnatians own homes larger than 40,000 square feet but only house a few people. The question is, how many people will be housed in the 40,000 sq ft? The answer is, a relatively small number of people will be housed in the housing program.

The anti-CityLink people know this but, again, they don’t want a debate based on facts because they’ll lose, so they resort to fear and scare tactics. Here’s a good example.

And the 40,000 people that CityLink will serve are all living in the West End, apparently uncounted in the last census.

The writer would have you believe that 40,000 will be housed in the CityLink project. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I stated above, they’ll actually house a handful of people.

Now, when did I ever say that that everyone using CityLink’s services were residents of the West End?! I never said or implied such a thing. What I’ve said, which is the truth, is that many West End residents will be among the 40,000 receiving the services. I’ve also objected to the mischaracterization from the anti-CityLink people that CityLink will only be for ex-cons, homeless, and felons.

The issue is big white money and 3CDC relocating violently ill psychotic people right next to three black schools and a black neighborhood so that rich people can buy Condos.

Another fear tactic without a shred of proof. There is no proof that 3CDC has contributed, or will contribute, a dime to CityLink. There is no proof that violently ill psychotic people will use CityLink’s services or visit their building. They certainly won’t be among the handful of people who get accepted into the transitional housing program. Ah, and what about the kids?! Whose going to support putting kids in danger?  But, once again, there is nothing to convince rational people that the placement of CityLink in the West End will place any children in danger. It’s just the opposite.

What we’ve got here is a gang of white people who just moved into the West End and now want to tell other people that they aren’t welcome. Well, guess what! CityLink is coming to the West End and you can leave if you don’t like it.

Nate is from Northside.  He hasn’t pushed for CityLink there.  Not in his backyard.

This is one of the dumbest arguments put forward by the anti-CityLink people. CityLink shouldn’t be put in Queensgate, or Hyde Park, or Northside because: (1) the people who need the service don’t live there, (2) there isn’t the available space, and (3) there isn’t the easy access to public transportation. I know the dummies opposing CityLink will keep repeating the same tired argument but no matter how many times they say it it won’t make it any more sensible.

You have to wonder why the people from CityLink have been working closely with Nate Livingston and not with the Pastors of the West End.  Nate is unstable, and he isn’t even a West End resident.  I guess they want any mouthpiece they can get.

There you go lying. The people from CityLink HAVEN’T been working closely with me. I’ve asked a few questions and received answers. From what I’ve seen, CityLink has willingly provided information to anyone who asked for it. You are also lying about CityLink not working with West End pastors. They’ve reached out to the pastors for quite some time and are in frequent communication with many of them.

Your mama is unstable!!!

I’ll always speak up in defense of people who are doing right and against people, like you, who are doing wrong.

You’ve barely warmed your bed in the West End and already think you can control the neighborhood. Some white people never learn! People all over the world hate white Americans because far too many white people don’t know how to share. Indian massacres, slavery, colonization, unjust aggressive wars. Some of you people just don’t get it.

K says:
10 Jan 2006  at  10:13 pm | #

The issue is big white money and 3CDC relocating violently ill psychotic people right next to three black schools and a black neighborhood so that rich people can buy Condos.

3CDC is not associated with CityLink. I see your paranoid fantasies extend to blaming 3CDC (and “big white money”) for everything you don’t like. CityLink is a church project, there is no corporation involved.

Tyrone says:
11 Jan 2006  at  11:17 am | #

How come all the backers of the plan are from somewhere else?  When Nate Livingston is the most vocal proponent of a plan, you know it has problems.

As a parent of one of the students in one of those schools, I think it is a bad idea.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) says:
11 Jan 2006  at  01:05 pm | #

Nate;
I doubt that there are any 40,000 SF homes in the city, that is extremely large. 

I do agree that the 3CDC/Citylink connection is non-existent.  This is an independent, somewhat uninformed group of evangelical churches who probably feel guilty about their abandonment of the city, and want to help some poor people.  I say, more power to them.  I hope they succeed in their mission, and learn something themselves in the process.

Queensgate and Northside were also investigated for possible locations, and those places also meet the criteria of having public transportation and being relatively central.  However the West End site met the size and price requirements better.

Nate Livingston says:
11 Jan 2006  at  11:24 pm | #

Even though their arguments have been thoroughly debunked, one by one, the anti-CityLink folks continue to do their best to scare us. Someone thinks we should all shiver in fear at the thought of 40,000 receiving services from CityLink! Well, do the math and you’ll find that that averages out to about 110 people per day. By comparison, one of my friends is a Hamilton County Municipal Court Judge. Her docket had 62 people on it the other day. And that’s just one courtroom. That number doesn’t include the number of prosecutors, defense attorneys, family members, and court personnel who come into the courthouse every single day. In case you missed it, my point is that the 40,000 number being thrown around means absolutely nothing!

40,000 Square Feet says:
11 Jan 2006  at  11:25 pm | #

Nate says that 40,000 square feet will only house a few people.  The average American dwelling is around 2,000 square feet.  This is 20 times that size.

Nate Livingston says:
11 Jan 2006  at  11:43 pm | #

Hometown

You may be right that there aren’t any 40,000 sf homes in Cincinnati. I did a quick search and found out that’s the size of Bill and Melinda Gates’s $97 Million “Ecology House” in Medina, Washington. (source)

Nate Livingston says:
12 Jan 2006  at  12:19 am | #

The anti-CityLink crowd hates the truth. First, Kimberly Hale-McCarty was running all over town claiming the CityLink Center would dedicate 36,000 sqaure feet to transient housing. Now they’ve increased the number to 40,000. Interesting. Either way, this isn’t so large. I’d compare it to the size of a small nursing home. The Taft Museum, the expanded former home of Charles Taft is 40,000 square feet. (source) The Fairfield Community Arts Center is 40,000 sf. (source) We are talking about a transitional home. 40,000 sq. ft. isn’t that big.

Notice how the CityLink critics never address the more important question of how many people will be housed at one time in the transitional program? Ask yourself why they never respond once their lie about violent felons or sexual offenders is debunked.

The way to win over the public on CityLink is by providing facts to counter the opponents lies. Once the public realizes that the anti-CityLink people are trying to trick them into following their irrational fears instead of their good hearts, they’ll be angry with them.

Hate says:
12 Jan 2006  at  12:22 am | #

“You’ve barely warmed your bed in the West End and already think you can control the neighborhood. Some white people never learn! People all over the world hate white Americans because far too many white people don’t know how to share. Indian massacres, slavery, colonization, unjust aggressive wars. Some of you people just don’t get it.”

Nate you are a racist and a bigot! Do you really think anyone on this blog has participated in “Indian massacres, slavery, colonization, unjust aggressive wars”?

What were you going to say about white liberals? Some more of your racist bullshit!

I know it’s ok for black people to be racist isn’t it? No wonder so many people think you’re an asshole!

Nate Livingston says:
12 Jan 2006  at  07:48 am | #

Do you really think anyone on this blog has participated in “Indian massacres, slavery, colonization, unjust aggressive wars”?

Yes!

Now do you have any more questions or comments about CityLink?!

Nate says:
12 Jan 2006  at  07:17 pm | #

Nate, those mad math skilz are impressive, especially the 40,000 square foot house link.  You are a mental giant.

And I confess, I was responsible for all the Indian massacres, slavery, colonization, and unjust aggressive wars.  I do it all in my spare time between community cleanups.  Gotta have a hobby!

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

<b>

<del>

<i>

quote

code

@

<a>

Close Tags

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: