That reassuring line appears in a Globe op-ed by Lawrence Harmon that ran a few days ago. In Harmon’s view, the sudden closure of the Long Island shelter, at which hundreds of homeless people and recovering drug addicts found refuge and treatment, was actually a good thing, because it created “an opportunity to integrate Long Island into the national recreation area without giving short shrift to the homeless.” Long Island, one of the Boston Harbor islands, has long been closed to the general public. And that’s a darn shame, says Harmon. Wouldn’t it be great, Harmon asks, if Long Island were “to be integrated fully into the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area”?
The National Park Service, the state Department of Conservation and Recreation, the US Coast Guard, and the nonprofit Boston Harbor Island Alliance are among the dozen or so managing partners responsible for providing better access to the historic sites, scenic walking trails, and beaches in the 34-island recreation area. And Long Island is rich in such amenities.
But wait, I hear you cry. A lot of people without other options found shelter on Long Island before the bridge was shut down. Where will they go if the shelter never reopens? A raucous public meeting last week made pretty clear that the homeless, and those who advocate for them, were not happy about the abrupt closure, and even less so about the apparently inadequate measures that have been put in place since then.
No worries, Harmon reassures us. “No one is proposing to abandon the homeless.” After all, he says,
[t]he Walsh administration has offered a thoughtful plan to build a large, temporary shelter along the Southeast Expressway at the edge of the South End. The location has several advantages, including proximity to social services. But why stop at building a temporary shelter from prefabricated materials? The construction of a permanent shelter capable of accommodating 400 to 500 homeless people on the site would offer a long-term solution without the need to return to Long Island.
Hmmm … that site description rings a bell … didn’t I just see something …? Oh yeah. Today’s Globe:
Planning is quietly underway for construction of a soccer stadium in Boston, one that would bring the resurgent New England Revolution closer to their urban fan base, according to people familiar with the Kraft family’s search for a site.
Among the sites under consideration is a strip of city-owned land off Interstate 93 on Frontage Road, where Boston has a large yard for towed cars and public works. The South Boston property offers easy access from major highways and is near the MBTA’s Red Line as well as rail lines at nearby South Station.
Numerous sources said the Kraft family has been meeting with state and city officials to discuss the stadium and possible locations over the past several months, with the team focusing on Frontage Road….
The Frontage Road location is adjacent to an industrial area that the group organizing Boston’s efforts to host the 2024 Summer Olympics had identified as a potential location for the main Olympics stadium. Kraft is also a member of the Olympics group….
The city yard is also a candidate for a new homeless shelter to replace a facility on Long Island that was abruptly shuttered last month after the harbor bridge was condemned.
Yeah. A bunch of homeless people and recovering drug addicts vs. Bob Kraft and the Boston 2024 Olympics crowd. Who do you think is going to win that one?
I really don’t know whether having major shelter and rehab facilities on a remote, difficult-to-access island in Boston Harbor is a good idea; I will leave it to others with far more knowledge and experience in such matters to sort that out. What I am pretty sure of is that having such facilities available somewhere is better than having them available nowhere.
If it’s really true, as many have said, that we should judge societies on how they treat their most vulnerable members, then the resolution of this crisis is a moral test of Mayor Walsh’s new administration, as well as Boston as a whole. Let’s try to get it right.
There is no difference to me between the poor young man with a health problem who spends his money on designer hooded sweatshirts and a society with the means to take care of its poor and sick but chooses instead to build stadiums to elevate multimillion dollar athletes.
I definitely have a bias on this one though – I like adding land to our National Parks. Plus I always questioned why the services were being offered so out of the way.
http://www.nationofchange.org/utah-ending-homelessness-giving-people-homes-1390056183
“In eight years, Utah has quietly reduced homelessness by 78 percent, and is on track to end homelessness by 2015.
“How did Utah accomplish this? Simple. Utah solved homelessness by giving people homes. In 2005, Utah figured out that the annual cost of E.R. visits and jail stays for homeless people was about $16,670 per person, compared to $11,000 to provide each homeless person with an apartment and a social worker. So, the state began giving away apartments, with no strings attached. Each participant in Utah’s Housing First program also gets a caseworker to help them become self-sufficient, but they keep the apartment even if they fail. The program has been so successful that other states are hoping to achieve similar results with programs modeled on Utah’s.”
How many empty houses and apartments in Boston? Nationally, I’ve read it’s 2, 3, 4, 5 times as many as the official numbers for homelessness. Why aren’t we discussing this possibility for Boston and MA?
PS: My friends, the late Jack Powers and Julie Stone, established the community garden for the homeless on Long Island. What is happening with that?
It’s been a decades-long attempt to hide the homeless behind not only a locked gate, but a locked and armed gate leading to a bridge that leads to an island away from the rest of society.
People used to joke that they wish they could shuttle off XYZ group of undesirables to a desert island, so no one would have to deal with them.
Boston has literally done that. For shame.
And for what long term good? It’s far away from any opportunities for people on the island to get a job or much needed services. It’s not solving any problems.
The history of the island is the literal inspiration for Shutter Island. That should give people a sense of what Long Island is all about.
I agree that we should be suspicious of anyone, like Harmon, who would suggest the closure of Long Island isn’t a problem, but a wonderful opportunity.
That is completely blind to the short term issue of the disruption that has been caused for all the people who lived on that island, figuring out how we can maintain services and provide shelter to all the people who lived on the island.
But we absolutely, positively should integrate the homeless into society, find them homes to live in among people — not hide them away behind an armed gate on a bridge that leads to an island.
We should absolutely, positively stop using the island to hide the problem.
Hiding them away just means people are never exposed to the full scale of the problem, which means we’re not going to put the effort we should into ending it. It is critical that if there are homeless people in our state, they should live in every community.
We should immediately adopt Utah’s model, where we fund apartments for the homeless all across the state…. so they aren’t homeless anymore. If Utah can do that, so can we.
Utah has found this approach improves lives, helps people get back on their feet and ultimately saves money over the long run. We would find that here in Massachusetts, too.
Instead of spending god knows how many millions repairing the bridge, we should use that money to provide services and fund apartments for the homeless. We should also find dedicated revenue streams in the city for the homeless, up to and including any revenue that could be generated from Long Island itself.