In response to The Californian “Village of Hope” Article.

The Rescue Mission and the Village of Hope is a noble cause.  No doubt about it.

But looking over the article posted HERE on the Village of Hope run by the Rescue Mission, there is this contained within the story (emphasis mine):

One evening about three months ago, Jackson returned to the village, failed the Breathalyzer test and immediately was dismissed from the village for 90 days. He admitted drinking alcohol.
“He broke a rule and that was the consequence,” said Joe Wheeler, the village’s “major gifts officer,” responsible for raising much of the $1 million it takes each month to run the village. Wheeler also seems to know all 184 residents by their first names.
Jackson’s wife and children were allowed to stay at the village. He went to work and lived at a Salvation Army shelter in Santa Ana.

Now,  if this situation were to occur on Margarita and 79 South (Temecula Pkwy), where would Mr. Jackson be staying for 90 days? The green belts of Paseo del Sol or Paloma del Sol? The dirt lot behind Fresh & Easy and Albertson’s?

In the City Council video from August 11, 2009, Mayor Edwards spins towards the end (condemning those who are opposed) that this will NOT be a place for criminals, gang members, drug addicts, child molesters, etc. This will be a place to help families that are foreclosed on. A place where a lawyer living out of his car can go.

Mayor, are you going to subject families that are foreclosed on and an honest lawyer living out of his car to have to take a breathalyzer test to enter the homeless shelter? How humiliating for them!

Let’s take a look at the Orange County Rescue Mission (who are affiliated with the Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission) website and look up their success stories.

About three quarters of these stories reference drugs, alcohol, gangs, prison, or domestic violence. This includes a couple allusions to abuse not specifically stated, but easy to read between the lines. Also included are stories that have multiple children being born with no mention of the father (strangers hanging around the shelter?), someone “still struggling with inner demons”, and someone else dealing with anger issues. The most-listed stories involve drugs by far, more than double compared to the others (19 specific references).

Most irritating is that the City Council seems to be blending in the need for low income housing with the homeless shelter.


6 Responses to “In response to The Californian “Village of Hope” Article.”

  1. caught off guard Says:

    I wonder when exactly the re-development company learned of the secondary project with RCC, the Rescue Mission and the 20 units alloted for transitional housing? Before, during or after the bidding process?

    It was mentioned during the Council meeting that candidates for the housing would be screened for drugs/alcohol. It was also mentioned that the Mission would not deal with these issues. Which is it? Again, we run into this problem of resistance to public scrutiny in regards to the Rescue Mission, the RCC and the truth.

    It seems to me that the better solution would be to place the Rescue Mission in a different location where the RCC wouldn’t be involved. The Rescue Mission deals exclusively with assisting people with dependency issues yet, suddenly it will completely exclude these folks from the Margarita location for 55 years? Seems to me that the truth has gotten lost in the spin. Piggybacking the Rescue Mission/transitional housing project onto the re-development project is an ill-conceived idea.

  2. stopsummerhouse Says:

    It should be pointed out that the Temecula Murrieta Rescue Mission is the Rancho Community Church working in conjunction with the Orange County Rescue Mission.

  3. Right Under My Nose Says:

    I only heard about this project the other day (Aug 17) from a neighbor. I assume the City covered itself in terms of following all legal procedures to inform the public before voting? Shouldn’t there have been a huge sign on the property to apprise the public of the change? I drive by the location daily and the sign for Senior community is still there – while a vote was taken to change the scope…there must be a law akin to the Brown Act that governs this. I’ll research it when i have a moment.

  4. Right Under My Nose Says:

    What about the neighboring HOA? (Paseo and Paloma). Do the boards know about this project? And if i just learned about it the other day, how many residents are really aware of this? I’ll contact my PASEO but someone who lives in Paloma should do the same. We need a message board so people can post things more conviently.

  5. Shocked Says:

    According to the city, the public meeting held in August 2006 when Summerhouse was a senior community was all that was needed, so no signs were put up on Summerhouse since. Even though the city wasn’t paying anything in 2006 and now they’re paying $6 million. Oh, and before it was a SENIOR COMMUNITY and now it is a homeless shelter, but that isn’t really a change of use, is it?

  6. fred92592 Says:

    I was away on vacation when I recieved a flyer about this project. Since it a complex designed for seniors, why can’t it be a complex for low income seniors? I am deeply distressed over this!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: