
People of good faith have positions all across the spectrum on the Department of Veterans Affairs plan to move its day drop-in center for veterans (not all of whom are homeless) to a new location at Tenth and Main.
Mayor Mark Stodola could take some lessons from people in the neighborhood who've resisted tarring the country's military veterans with a wholly unflattering psyco- and sociopathic brush. Some neighbors support the center. Others don't, but much of the opposition has been thoughtful. Critics have raised a variety of specific concerns about hours of operation, after-hours issues and other relevant topics. Stodola's initial "idiotic" remark was not a conversation starter, nor was it particularly persuasive of him to say a nearby liquor store (as if there's a neighborhood without one) is but crack to a cocaine junkie. The suggestion was that all vets seeking services are but one subliminal message away from a crawl to the bottom of a fortified wine bottle.
The mayor's comment in today's Democrat-Gazette beats all, though. To the prospect that federal taxpayers would be out almost $1 million to pay off lease obligations if the chosen site isn't used, Stodola said:
"If there is a financial consequence, then I hope that there is a lesson learned that working in concert with the city and community is a better way to resolve such issues than working in isolation,” he said.
Easy talk with taxpayer money. And spoken with the financial comfort of a man just given an additional half-billion-dollars over 10 years by city taxpayers. What's a million dollars here and there? This kind of talk does not inspire confidence in city financial accountability.
VA officials, by the way, have made it plain that the city has never been much of a cooperative participant in finding places to serve veterans. For all its protests, the city's record is that it is still years behind its commitment to provide services for the homeless within its boundaries. I won't be holding my breath for opening of even a portion of the old Union Rescue Mission purchased by the city for a homeless day center (a structure so bad Union Rescue is abandoning it for better quarters.)
Working with the city has meant, to date, a lot of talk and then a suggestion for a remote, unattractive location. The VA believes veterans deserve better. Too bad that when they advertised for proposals back in July the city and its homeless coordinator weren't reading the newspaper. (Oh, nobody reads legal ads? Then maybe the city should get the law changed that requires the expensive publication of them at taxpayer expense.)
If city officials had read the paper, perhaps they could have come up with better alternatives than those that came in. Maybe the city should help pay the financial penalty for its dereliction if it really wants to achieve a new location. It has plenty of money apparently. If so, the city should be sure to come up with something suitable. Hint: renting space to the feds in the rescue mission castoff out toward Granite Mountain isn't it.
The VA is continuing to move toward the Main Street site. But the head of the VA has yet to be heard from. Some of his final decision may depend on how hard an anti-vets-center push he gets from U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin. He's the reserve military veteran who wraps himself in a uniform on every possible occasion — except here, where post-war service to our defenders is on the line.
PS — A reader thinks Bruce Springsteen's latest, the angrily ironic "We Take Care of Our Own," should be a theme song for the vets center issue.
Showing 1-11 of 11
What a scummy pair to draw to. I hope that doesn't rub off on the better folks of Little Rock. No, I am not a "veteran", but I am a concerned American. Follow the money, Little Rockers.
Does anyone know if they will be using the existing building as it is, or if there will be any new construction? I really wish they could infill the parking lot and bring a building façade back on the street front.
Curious as to whether Robert Johnston or Matilda Buchanan have ever seen the city's "homeless coordinator" at the 5-days-a-week breakfasts that they actually coordinate for the homeless.
How long must we suffer these rich fools? The Banana Republic actually enjoys a much better reputation than it deserves. But, the truth will out.
Hmm not all of whom are homeless? It is my understanding this wouldn't be limited to Veterans. Is this true?
Brilliant idea to put it right across the street from a liquor store. This area is having a hard enough time. I will be reconsidering who I vote for next.
From what I understand by watching the GOP debates, homeless people made a conscious choice not to be billionaires and so they must live with the consequences of that poor decision.
Actually Max, the city should be on the hook for the entire $1 million since they obviously have been so busy wining and dining each other and the Chamber that no one is actually running the ship. No one reads the paper? I doubt the "homeless coordinator" could find that free breakfast with a map.
And BTW city officials, those are real Little Rock tax-paying residents living in all of the three areas that you propose to wipe out for your playground, er, industrial park, that ought to be out in the industrial district. No one cares whether it is 5 minutes from your exalted offices-what counts to a business is how near the airport, major highways (hint I-630 isn't the major road you think it is especially at rush hour or at lunch time), or the railroad.
If Little Rock wants to be the great business town it thinks it should be, it really needs a lot of new leadership at all levels.
"...the three areas that you propose to wipe out for your playground, er, industrial park, that ought to be out in the industrial district. No one cares whether it is 5 minutes from your exalted offices-what counts to a business is how near the airport, major highways (hint I-630 isn't the major road you think it is especially at rush hour or at lunch time), or the railroad."
First off, it's not an industrial park, and therefore does not belong in the industrial district. It's a research park and technology incubator to feed off of the work already being done at UAMS and UALR. The extensive study that was conducted by a 3rd party firm concluded that in order to meet its full potential, it needed to be within close proximity to both of those institutions. It also noted the failure of similar facilities in other cities when located on the outskirts of town. That is why it will be built in one of the 3 proposed locations.
An additional benefit is that in the long-term, it will help bridge the gap and erase the mental barrier between the areas north of I-630 and those south of I-630.
Yea..Little Rocker...just like the one they built down at Texas A&M a couple decades back...that cost millions and is nothing more than an overflow institution for the university admin departments...no jobs have been generated.
The only thing that will bridge that 630 divide will be an ACTUALLY BRIDGE, that is the covering over of 630. Lots of past data clearly show that minimal efforts like these never accomplish that task (and as for a little evidence to support this...if this was the intent and is such a great plan...then why won't UAMS, UALR or Childrens commit to putting any money in the pot!!!).
The 21st century GOP where your property and/or rights don't matter.
cbb, I can't remember where I read the analysis but the Keystone pipeline may cause…
>>Public institutions aren't exempt from supply and demand.<<
partially true. They need to provide…
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings