Re:News reports the the current admin would close the McMillan Drop In Center

Discussion
1

This is actually a mutual benefit non profit municipal partnership land grab.
The administration's position that the 1M will house 100.
McMillan servers thousands, hundreds daily, come to get off their feet and or streets and safely rest in a chair and shower.
For a million dollars our streets and autos are safer during the midnight hours.
Of the total ten percent have a higher propensity to rob. 30% to break into a car.
Its the least a wealthy locality can offer.
I've led many there convincing them that "you don't have use that porcelain piece of a spark plug that silently shatters windows.
Find private and non profit money to buy your own damn land and build. Those greedy bastards. The McMillian land is so valuable, because a center must be centrally located. Proportion to population and service my first act will be to kill the deal. Such measures feed my vote. The Willie Gettys are in for a battle. The time has come for many "Mr. Smiths goes to Washington" and right here!
I rather see gov do less than have these corporate failure "Coach Baggers" profit non profit; social pimps spending a hundred million for a building to house less than two hundred. What's that $500k each. Oh and of course one third of them are market rate. But then all the numbers are smoke in mirrors. The builder bed the politician who bed the non profit and we pay. What's next partnering rec centers with YMCA fees.

DuPree for Mayor '08

2

Eric,

  I suggest you take a look at the city budget and recommend specific alternative spending cuts in other programs equal or greater to the amount that would be saved by closing the McMillan Center. Rather than publicly saying "don't close McMillan," instead talk about cutting money being given to failing government schools, or the arts, or the police, or whatever. Cutting other spending would reduce the fiscal pressure to close the center, so by making such cuts more likely you would be helping keep McMillan open and making it clear that you think "helping" the poor should be a government priority compared with, say, "helping" artists or "helping" schools. But you'd be doing it in a way that stays true to the libertarian position that government needs to be smaller and less expensive, and that neither growing it nor maintaining the status quo are acceptable outcomes. Don't forget that poor people are the ones being hurt the most by direct and indirect taxes, fees, and loss of economic opportunity that go along with government funding things like the McMillan Center that operate on the basis of keeping them in a state of dependency with their hands out.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>