• CROSS STREET SITE: The VA looked here almost five years ago to relocate. Mayor Stodola said no.

Oh, this is rich in irony. Mayor Mark Stodola joined forces with others to prevent a move of the VA's day-center for veterans more than four years ago that, had it happened, would have meant no headache for him today with the proposal to move to an abandoned car dealership at 10th and Main amid a row of commercial uses.

It was September 2007. The VA had applied to the Capitol Zoning District Commission to move from its current home at 2nd and Ringo, a former Associated Press office, to a building housing the Roy Rogers auto parts store at 106 Cross Street, about two blocks away and directly across the street from the Salvation Army transient shelter. Though close by, the property is under the zoning control of the Capitol Zoning District Commission, which oversees land use around the Capitol and Governor's Mansion.

According to CZDC records, a huge outcry arose against the move, particularly from neighborhood property owners. There was so much opposition, in fact, that the VA scaled down its request and resubmitted a reduced proposal to simply move some clinical services to the Roy Rogers building. It never followed through on the application and has remained at 2nd and Ringo, with some satellite space at other buildings nearby. The Zoning District staff didn't look favorably on the original application, finding it inconsistent with plans for development of the Capitol area.

Here's the kicker. Guess who opposed the VA center's attempts to expand in its existing neighborhood? Mayor Mark Stodola. And Sharon Priest, director of the Downtown Little Rock Partnership, another source of opposition to the VA center on Main Street. Stodola wrote one letter. Priest wrote two. Here they are.

You can perhaps see here a bit of what the VA means when it says the city has resisted past efforts to find other quarters. You should also note that part of the excuses offered by Stodola and Priest for opposition included the city's effort to address the homeless problem with a day shelter (though the VA can't commingle its money for serving non-vets, much as the city seems to hope it could). It's more than four years later. The city still has no shelter and it will be lucky to do so by the five-year anniversary. There is one in North Little Rock. There are complaints about shuttle service there, though Stodola has promised transportation will be a breeze when and if the city ever brings a decrepit rescue mission on the far fringe of the city on Confederate Boulevard up to code and makes it usable by the homeless.

The VA has reason not to accept the city's professed good intentions at face value. If the city kills the Main Street relocation, there's some history to judge what will happen next. And maybe some remorse on the mayor's part.

PS — I drove past Roy Rogers' building on the way home. A number of men were hanging outside, probably waiting to be fed at the Salvation Army across the street. That revitalized corridor Stodola promised 4.5 years ago wasn't much in evidence.

Some cleanup from last night's marathon Little Rock City Board meeting:

* VETS CENTER: City Attorney Tom Carpenter said he was studying, but as yet had no opinion, on whether the fact that the Veterans Affairs Department has applied for a building permit to convert a Main Street building for a day center for vets puts it beyond the reach of any future change in zoning ordinances. An ordinance that would have required a conditional use permit for the vets center was deferred last night. He believes the center will have to go through the Board of Adjustment process for review of significant building modifications, parking and landscaping. The use of the property is not an issue the board reviews.

I got additional info on two bits of interesting testimony at the lengthy hearing last night. 1) John McKay, a realtor representing buyers of the Main Street vacant building to rent to the VA, said the city planning department was told almost three months ago about the proposed purchase of the building for vet center use and he said he offered to take any questions. He said he was told the use was permitted by zoning ordinance and so his negotiations continued to close the sale 60 days later, in January. Dana Carney of the planning office said he and director Tony Bozynski don't recall such a conversation. 2) An advocate of the vets center said the VA had tried to get approval to use a commercial building near its existing center at 2nd and Ringo to expand several years, but was denied. Carney said he thought that request concerned a former auto parts store on land that falls under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Zoning District Commission and did not come through the city. The VA has said repeatedly that the city has always resisted its ideas about new locations over the years.

A VA spokesman said it is proceeding with plans for the Main Street work, though VA Secretary Eric Shinseki has been asked to intervene by U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin and hasn't made his thoughts known yet. VA officials will meet Monday with Griffin and Mayor Stodola about the location. The VA, too, isn't certain at what point its plans could be considered far enough advanced to be beyond the reach of a new zoning ordinance. The city hasn't approved its building permit yet and it may also, for example, withhold a certificate of occupancy if it wanted to be difficult. The spokesman said she doubted the renovations to the building would be sufficient — more than 50 percent of the building's replacement value — to trigger Board of Adjustment review, but no firm figures are in hand. She said the developers intended to do everything necessary to meet neighbors' concerns about security and landscaping improvements.

• PLEASANT RIDGE: Traffic changes coming.

* PLEASANT RIDGE TOWNE CENTER: The city board approved, 10-2, a proposal to realign two front entrances, add a new rear entrance and improve traffic signals at the Pleasant Ridge shopping center on Highway 10. The center developer will pay for the work. The staff opposed the measure because of the impact on the major arterial, Highway 10. It's a mess out there. CORRECTION: This occurred after I checked out. City Director Brad Cazort said the measure did not include a new rear entrance as originally proposed. That idea was removed previously.

* TAX WATCHDOGS: The board approved members of the Little Rock Citizen Evaluation of New Tax Committee (CENT) which will oversee how the city spends its new sales tax income. Gary Smith and Sybil Jordan Hampton wer named co-chairs. Other members:

* Ward 1 — Chrystal Gray

* Ward 2 — Dr. Anika Whitfield

* Ward 3 — Steve Strickland

* Ward 4 — Kyle Demilt

* Ward 5 — Peter McKinney O'Conor

* Ward 6 — Masheerah Tharp

* Ward 7 — Don Shellabarger

At-large — Charles Blake, Khayyam Eddings, Troy Laha

• VANILLA: Bridge designs such as this moved no one at yesterday's rollout.

It was certainly nice to see outgoing North Little Rock Mayor Pat Hays join my call yesterday for a new Arkansas River bridge crossing in the Chester Street vicinity as opposed to a Broadway Bridge tear-down and two-year traffic nightmare. Don Zimmerman of the Arkansas Municipal League also contributed support for this common-sense idea.

There is a cost — huge — to major road disruption. Studies have shown some California freeway projects were so expensive and so disruptive that they never recouped the cost in supposed increased efficiency. This is somewhat reminiscent of our never-ending effort to make it easier for more people to drive to and from Saline County every day. The construction will never be enough. We need comprehensive ideas about housing patterns and transit — including rail and pedestrian- and bike-friendly ideas.

Pie in the sky, I know. And Debbie Pelly and her ilk are in the wings calling this a UN plot for one-world dominion.

Still, thanks Mayor Hays.

I didn't detect an iota of enthusiasm for the bridge designs floated yesterday — a choice of vanilla, home-style vanilla and mellorine vanilla. Even then, the projected cost has jumped by 33 percent. The dream of an architectural monument has sunk without a trace, as you probably suspected it would if left to the cost-conscious Highway and Transportation Department.

Maybe it's not crazy to talk common sense — a cheaper and quicker no-frills new span and then further talk about a monument at Broadway when somebody has an idea where to find the money necessary to build it.

If not, said Hays in a D-G article, "It's going to be a zoo around here for two years or thereabouts." Amen.

• INADEQUATE FOR SERVICES: The existing VA drop-in center at 2nd and Ringo.

After offices open, I'll try to get a sense of what comes next for the proposal to relocate veterans day services to 10th and Main. An emergency ordinance to complicate that move was deferred last night by the Little Rock City Board.

There seems little doubt that, even if the VA moves forward, there'll be a need for city Board of Adjustment review of the design plans, parking spaces and landscaping. I don't think the use of the property would be an issue at that level, though it would almost certainly arise in public comments. A negative decision by the Board of Adjustment could be appealed to Circuit Court, not the City Board.

No matter where you stand on the vets' center, this emergency ordinance was a cluster****, a classic example of no-brain, reactive city gimmickry. To come up with an excuse to block the vets center, city geniuses acting at Mayor Stodola's direction rounded up a laundry list of legitimate enterprises that would be removed from a comprehensive zoning plan and made to go through a cumbersome and capricious conditional use process. In the end, this included drug stores and grocery stores. A parade of speakers illustrated the manifest problems in the ordinance. It didn't stop the vets center and it, again, made city leadership look petty and inept.

Meanwhile, I got an e-mail last night to supporters of the VA with a rundown on last night's action. It included the list of reasons why the VA is seeking to move from 2nd and Ringo. In the event an interest in serving veterans might interest you:

LATE UPDATE: At 9:44 p.m., the City Board voted unanimously to delay action on a broad zoning ordinance for four weeks. The proposed vets center dominated much of the discussion, but an outpouring of objections from the real estate and business community about unintended consequences from a broad zoning ordinance not in final form until today was the cause of the delay.

From my earlier post:

The Little Rock City Board is two hours into a a discussion about an emergency change in the zoning ordinance that would, among other things, require the Department of Veterans Affairs to get a conditional use permit to open a day center for veterans at 10th and Main. Under existing law, the center is allowed by right in the zone, though it first would have to pass a Board of Adjustment review for the building plans.

Several directors said it was important to require a public hearing process for the broad range of institutions covered in the ordinance — from mental health facilities, to group homes, to religious organizations to businesses that sell alcohol, including convenience stores.

Directors Erma Hendrix and Kenneth Richardson both noted that they and others had pushed for years for measures to limit proliferation of alcohol sales, but the issue suddenly came to the fore in the rush to stop the veterans center.

Mayor Mark Stodola tried to make it appear the ordinance was primarily a response to long complaints about a proliferation of alcohol outlets. He pointed to maps drawjn up by staff showing incidents of crime around such outlets. A conditional use permit for liquor outlets, if granted, would face a potential legal challenge. It effectively gives the city board control over allowing alcohol sales, a power specifically given to state regulators.

A couple of dozen people spoke along familiar lines about the vets center — fear of degradation of a residentiial neighborhood on the part of some who live nearby; defense of the needs of veterans from others.

I suspect the VA will proceed with its plans regardless of the outcome. It has a lease and a good plan for the facility. It will seek a conditional use permit if necessary. The public hearing arguments then would be repeated. Neighbors won't want it in their backyard. But what backyard neighbor will accept it or any of the other problematick businesses now opened up to an arbitrary decision-making policy. One neighbor said no area with residences and small businesses would be suitable for a facility that provided showers, meals and services to people who include homeless and those with mental and drug abuse problems. Which leaves what?

The real estate industry and representiatives of the convenience store business asked for a delay because of the broad impact of the ordinance and the hurryup consideration, less than a week's notice. Unforeseen consequences, as one said, are almost certain to arise. The ordinance was amended just today to cover convenience stores that sell only beer, not liquor. That's popular with some directors, such as Doris Wright, but an attorney emphasized the capriciousness of setting a policy that would allow only neighborhood unhappiness to bar an otherwise legitimate business.

The board broke shortly after 8 p.m. for a recess with 14 speakers still on the list to make comments. It returned for 90 more minutes of comments before deciding on a delay. It will be interesting to see if the VA forges ahead in the narrow window with work on its project (the owner of the building spoke of his investment and the legal and valid contract he'd entered after due diligence and notice to the city of the plans two months ago).

Further thoughts from after the break:

The Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department this morning released preliminary design ideas for a replacement for the Broadway Bridge.

Among other details, the Highway Department said its initial commitment of $45 million for the bridge will be increased to $58 million, based on preliminary engineering studies.

Here's a link to a page about the three proposals. Two are similar, one with red brick detail and one without. The link will give you some more detailed looks at proposals for pedestrian walkways and the like. The website has other details, including an aerial view that shows where existing ramps will be removed or replaced and where an existing Doubletree Hotel entrance will be closed. There are a couple of ideas shown for linking the bridge to Dickey-Stephens Park.

The two types of bridge design chosen tend to be somewhat cheaper and quicker builds than a couple of other designs — a twin-tied arch or cable-stayed (a design that won favor in an unofficial bridge design contest that Metroplan sponsored.)

The public is invited to view them and talk with officials about them at a meeting from 4 to 7 p.m. today at the Arkansas Transit Association, 620 W. Broadway, North Little Rock.

The existing bridge is safe and could be repaired, but highway officials have decided a wider span with better accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists is preferable to continuing repair. Local officials have urged a striking architectural design for the span to make a city landmark. My own preference is for a utilitarian span upriver, at Chester Street, for an additional river crossing. Then, after it's in place and there's an outlet for traffic, replace the Broadway Bridge, which gets heavy rush hour traffic. Rush hours downtown will be hellish if the bridge is closed next year for replacement. The closure could last 18 months or more.

We love our veterans in Little Rock, just so long as those who come back from wars with problems go where nobody can see them.

The latest in Little Rock Mayor Mark Stodola's crusade to keep a VA service center for vets off Main Street is a hurryup revision in Little Rock ordinances set for consideration next week. In short, it would require a conditional use permit from the City Board for a community health or welfare center, an establishment to care for alcoholic, narcotic or psychiatric patients, an establishment for religious, charitable or philanthropic organizations or for liquor stores.

Over the long haul, this has implications for dozens of organizations new and existing. In the short run, it would require a conditional use permit, not now required, for the VA day center, which has outgrown its space at 2nd and Ringo and has a lease and construction plans in hand for a new center at 10th and Main in an abandoned car dealership. Mayor Stodola has called the location idiotic. The neighborhood has been split on the issue. The VA has explained that all its clients are not homeless and all have agreed to rules of use in a facility that will be well regulated and secured.

The city will face no new obstacles in turning an aging homeless shelter on Confederate Boulevard into a city day homeless center. Mayor Stodola has already made it clear that he deems that neighborhood, with a nearby magnet school, suitable for dumping people, from the general homeless to military veterans enrolled in therapeutic, educational and vocational programs. U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin, likewise, has joined those trying to force military veterans into the boondocks at a decrepit facility not yet up to code, not handicap accessible and otherwise an insult to the people Griffin and others invoke solemnly as political foils on Memorial Day.

There was a time when city legal minds said you couldn't simply set a NIMBY standard on treatment facilities, which this conditional use process will institutionalize. No neighborhood will want a treatment center. They will be awarded depending on how loud neighbors scream or how much clout neighborhoods have before the City Board. Confederate Boulevard? Not so much. Main Street? More. The Heights and Chenal? No need to ask. A rational, non-arbitrary standard for making these calls won't be possible, as they were under previous zoning.

VA officials said they just learned of the proposed ordinance today and weren't prepared to comment. They are still waiting to hear from the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, who was asked to review the Main Street proposal by Congressman Griffin. City officials believe the VA can cancel its lease without financial obligations because, even before this ordinance, Board of Adjustment approval was necessary for parking, landscaping and other aspects of the redevelopment plan. The city attorney thinks the lease cannot be enforced at cost to federal taxpayers if the VA hasn't obtained city approval. I don't know what the developer holding the contract thinks about that.

There's another looming problem in this hurryup lawmaking from the people at City Hall who once helped earn Little Rock the title of the meanest city in America in treatment of homeless. Removing liquor stores from by-right approval in all zoning categories essentially puts the city in control of where permits are granted in the city. That is a power reserved by law to the state. The city sees it differently. That's what courts are for, I guess.

PS — City claims, with utter lack of credibility, that this ordinance wasn't designed to stop the vets' center. Even if you give them that, you can't ignore the emergency that requires adoption next week before VA can get its building permit. The lying liars of City Hall are at it again. A proud day for the strong mayor.

PPS — Homeless advocate and downtown resident Robert Johnston poses some questions:

• LIBRARY MAILER

I had to ask Library Director Bobby Roberts my baseline question:

Will the library itemize expenditures in the campaign to pass the tax?

As I indicated this week on the coming Pulaski Tech tax vote, I've decided to oppose any tax campaign in which expenditures aren't itemized. Mayor Mark Stodola said it was beyond his power to get the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce to itemize expenses in its shadowy campaign for a city sales tax, just as it has been impossible for him to get the chamber to fully tell taxpayers how it spends the $200,000 in tax money it gets every year. I'm just one vote, but it's going to vote from here on out for full accountability. Those who won't disclose campaign spending won't get my vote.

Said Bobby Roberts, who'll be using Mary Dillard as a political consultant as he has before:

I agree with you about the reporting & we will itemize how the money is spent in the report. In our case the Coalition does not pay very much through Mary. That is we pay directly to the vendor supplying the services so almost all of the coalition's expenditures will show in the report. Most goes for printing & mailing.

See how easy that was Mayor Stodola, Chamber officials, Markham Group?

Mayor Mark Stodola released a list of priorities for capital projects last night. City Director Joan Adcock complained that, as usual, the public got its first look when the list was released at the meeting. What is nominally referred to as city leadership simply hates to give the public time to study and form questions that might negate early spin.

'Baggers will be pleased to know short-term borrowing will be required to get the list off the ground quickly. Given our troubles in completing earlier bond issue projects in a timely fashion, a tiny bit of skepticism could be expected about the notion that upfront borrowing, against $50 million a year in new tax revenue for 10 years, will make things happen more quickly. We'll see.

Here's the list, thanks to Channel 4. Lots of street and drainage work listed; also 2.5 miles of sidewalk construction the first year.

• A LESSON: Mayor Mark Stodola says forfeiture of nearly $1 million if the VA doesn't lease this building for a veterans drop-in center would provide a valuable lesson.

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.

• 'EYES, EARS, NOSE': A neighbor explains her support for Main Street vet center and urges visit to existing center at 2nd and Ringo to look, listen and smell.

Kathy Wells, a Quapaw Quarter resident, former head of the Downtown Neighborhood Association and president of the Coalition of Little Rock Neighborhoods, explains why she voted in favor of relocation of a VA day drop-in center for military veterans at 10th and Main Street. The DNA Board split narrowly against the move, 6-5 Thursday night.

Wells, in addition to living in the QQA, owns a small apartment building on Scott Street, about one block from the abandoned car dealership proposed as a new home for a center that provides medical, counseling, vocational, educational, legal and other services to military veterans.

It's a long explanation. It's thoughtful. It speaks of her experience in working with the homeless and first-hand visits to the existing vet center. She knows whereof she speaks of the VA's record of delivering quality services to people the country claims to honor and the city's record of delivering talk but little action.

She illustrates with facts why public officials — pandering to legitimate concerns — have sold a misleading notion that all veterans in need of services are drunken bums and psychopaths. Kathy might not change anybody's mind, but she should shame the demagogues, if they had any.

CC: Mayor Mark Stodola and U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin.

• WELFARE QUEEN: The Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce is seeking a huge increase in utility ratepayer and taxpayer subsidies for its pro-business lobbying.

The morning outrage, courtesy of Barry Haas, who carefully follows the Central Arkansas Water Commission:

He was present for a commission meeting yesterday at which the Commission was asked for a 100 percent increase in the annual subsidy that water customers pay the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce — from $25,000 to $50,000. He said the Chamber was seeking a whopping $1.5 million, though I'm not clear if that's strictly in public subsidies or overall. A Chamber employee said it anticipates getting the majority of its "Stock in the Rock" development fund from private sources.

According to Barry, the Chamber is making the rounds of public agencies that support it for similar increases in support. The Little Rock budget this year currently is holding fast at the $200,000 annual taxpayer subsidy, but it's unknown what and when increases are planned to grab more of city taxpayer dollars. It will certainly seek a kickback for managing, from secret, the city sales tax campaign.

Haas said the Chamber will be making the rounds of other agencies with a hand out. I first wrote about this chamber shakedown in 2009. It extracted taxpayer and ratepayer money (unbeknownst to the public at large) from the city, Central Arkansas Water, the Sewer Committee, UALR and the Little Rock Port Authority, to the tune of $250,000 or so. n years past, County Judge Buddy Villines has been reluctant to commit county money to the fund-raising drive, in part because of the chamber's aggressive political stance. It's naturally pro-business, which means anti-labor. It has also taken a strong role in backing the corporate interests tearing down the Little Rock School District.

Accountability? It's non-existent. The Chamber won't specifically reveal how its existing tax subsidies are spent. It operated in the shadows to raise money for the city in a half-billion-dollar sales tax increase and then engaged a high-dollar attorney to defeat my effort at the state Ethics Commission to end the sham arrangement by which it laundered campaign money through a campaign consultant, the Markham Group, to avoid disclosing exactly how campaign money was spent.

This should be simple, but it's not in a city where the business community controls city government through a city board controlled by at-large representatives. This board, in turn, appoints members to several of the agencies giving public money to the chamber — water, sewer, port authority.

The chamber says this money is for economic development. THEIR kind of economic development naturally — anti-union, pro-corporate welfare incentive. Who can be against economic development? Not me. But the money paid the chamber can't be segregated from the chamber's other work on legislation contrary to the wishes of many in the community.

The chamber should raise its own money, not operate with a fat subsidy from taxpayers and ratepayers. Certainly not a subsidy arranged without meaningful public knowledge or input through the good offices of people nominally responsible to the public at large. "Everybody else does it" is not a legitimate argument for giving the chamber tax money or robbing banks.

I vote NO on a Chamber of Commerce tax.

PS: Do I need to remind you that Deltic Timber, a major supporter of the LR Chamber, is fighting the strongest measures for land use controls in the Lake Maumelle watershed? Graham Rich should be ashamed of himself.

PPS: A place to watch is the Technology Park Authority, created under a law written by the Chamber and stocked with members from Chamber leadership, including the chamber's executive director and former president, and the business establishment. It will be on the receiving end of $22 million from the new city sales tax. Might it be asked for handout, too? It would be a grotesque conflict of interest, but ...

Barry's note about the meeting:

• HOMELESS CENTER: City work continues on former Union Rescue Mission. But it's a long way from suitable for vets' use.

Bolstered by a thunderous blast against the Department of Veterans Affairs by the Democrat-Gazette editorial page this morning, U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin, fresh off a mailer singing his praises of his support for veterans, has announced his opposition to going forward with relocation of a day drop-in center for veterans at 10th and Main.

He wants the site selection suspended so that alternatives can be considered and there can be more communication with the community.

Here's his letter to VA Secretary Shinseki. It focuses on insufficient notice by the VA to city officials on the new location, including a rule that prohibits the VA from revealing potential sites. (A page is also dated Jan. 5; surely the congressman didn't form this opinion before meeting with people and then file it today pre-cooked for a neighborhood meeting? UPDATE: Aide says it's a typo.)

• OBJECTIONABLE: U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin objects to this building for new vets day treatment center.

Griffin has adopted Mayor Mark Stodola's talking points — the presence of a liquor store across the street and the city's many years of plans to establish a day center for homeless far removed from downtown, still a work in progress. The congressman doesn't say what distance he'd find unobjectionable between a veterans center and alcohol, but he does speak approvingly of the mayor's idea to put the veterans in with other homeless in a former Union Rescue Mission on Confederate Boulevard (about a four-block walk from malt liquor.) Wrote Griffin:

In addition to the Mayor’s suggested alternate location, there may be other locations that merit consideration. I believe that the most appropriate and best location could be identified with input from local residents, government officials, and community leaders in Little Rock, and I urge you to suspend the relocation of the Drop-In Day Treatment Center so that the VA can consult adequately with local stakeholders.

That process, if undertaken, would produce a procession of NIMBY speeches for the most part, but it also would extend things safely past the election season for Griffin.

I've asked Griffin's office if he's visited the 80-year-old rabbit warren of a dump that is the Union Rescue Mission, purchased last August by the city and undergoing a slow renovation to meet building codes. (UPDATE: An aide said he has.) It would be impossible to use for wheelchair vets because of multiple levels, currently without elevators. It would blend hard-core homeless with a veteran population that isn't always homeless or alcoholic, while removing the vets some distance from ready access to services they use downtown.

The existing VA center at 2nd and Ringo, outgrown, has been unfairly branded with activities associated in many cases with non-vet homeless who visit the nearby Salvation Army shelter. The vets deserve their own place, up to VA standards, not the jury-rigged rehab currently underway on Confederate (see jump for city account of work done so far). If the contract for 10th Main is suspended, it will likely carry a financial penalty for the VA. But Griffin has tested the wind and found the needs of veterans secondary to unhappy neighbors and the mayor.

The city's record on helping the homeless, however well-intentioned, has been slow and non-productive over many years. It has sent money to North Little Rock to operate a day center, which Mayor Pat Hays did without complaint. Whatever happens with the VA plans, they should not be harnessed to a city that has failed so long to deliver or be consigned to an after-thought of a building intentionally far removed from the center city. Until the mayor and Tim Griffin got involved, the VA was ready to move before the year was out into a carefully designed, well-equipped and expanded service center for vets with medical, education, legal and other services. The city is still fiddling. The city, by August, MAY be ready to occupy a small portion of the old Union Rescue Mission, but it would be months, maybe years, before plans could be drawn and work done to accommodate the VA in segregated space there. (And it would have to be segregated because VA money can't be used on other vets). Also, the Union Rescue Mission still has a lease on a significant part of the space.

It is simply dishonest for Stodola and Griffin to hold out the Union Rescue property as a viable alternative for the vets center. They deserve better. If Main isn't the answer, neither is Confederate Boulevard. And vets deserve better than a mayor and congressman who are effectively branding the entire population of United States military veterans served by these centers as drunken neighborhood nuisances.

A neighborhood meeting gets underway tonight at the neighborhood alert center on E. 21st. Should be lively.