I had heard about this from a church member, but was surprised and somewhat pleased to see it in the paper. Good churches often do good things quietly and don’t get the public kudos that they deserve.
I was even more surprised when my inbox filled up with people commenting about it and urging people to thank the church. It’s was good to see advocacy for the homeless from somewhere besides the “usual suspects”. I was also pleasantly surprised that the comments connected to the story didn’t go to that bad place that so many internet forums can go.
What didn’t surprise me was that a few people in the downtown are trying to get rid of the homeless. This has been going on for years and its not just Fred. And when I say “get rid of” I don’t mean to help solve homelessness. I mean, move them out of sight and away from where they have to look at “them” and impact their businesses.
So, kudos to the church and kudos to the community for showing support for their efforts.
Finally, I think John Quinlan said it better than I, so I thought I’d share his observations that were sent out to various communities:
There are several things that strike me as particularly ironic here.
One is the fact that a multi-millionaire, whose Dickensian opinions on the plight of the poor and minority people already receive frequent airings in the local media, is invoking the language of the oppressed and voiceless to claim that he had no other choice but to do this in order to be heard.
The second is that he considers it OK to use his power and influence to convince a local church’s members to oppose a moral stance taken by that church in the traditions of Christ in defense of the poor.
Third, one might argue that it’s his right to end his act of charity in providing a place for church members to park–but wouldn’t good professional business practices have dictated that he inform the church of his decision before the church invested in a major building project? While Rev. Schroerlucke of First United Methodist is magnanimous in giving thanks for the 18 years during which Manchester Place management agreed to let church members park in their lot, this was not an act that involved any great sacrifice on Mr. Mohs’s part. His parking garage sits empty on Sunday mornings. Perhaps he had the hopes of exerting his leverage in this way all along. Does he not realize that the main impact of his action is to make elderly parishioners walk many blocks in the cold to church? And yet he equates this action with the integrity inherent to standing up for one’s beliefs? Who does this man’s P.R.?
As a contributor to the Capital Times blog explains, Mr. Mohs lives just a block from the church, and Mohs has stated elsewhere that he had only become aware of the church’s use as an overflow shelter in the last month. Doesn’t this say something about the lack of significant alleged impact that this use of the church has had on the neighborhood?
In complaining about the alleged concentration of homeless services downtown, Mohs ignores the fact that many of Madison’s homeless families are being sheltered at churches all over the city of Madison, thanks to the work of the Interfaith Hospitality Network. And this unnecessary Mohs-generated controversy comes at a time when area agencies working on homeless issues are about to announce new initiatives to address the causes of homelessness on a truly community-wide basis.
People don’t move to Madison for “the privilege” of living in a homeless shelter–they move here for the same reason the rest of us do–because of the quality of life here, and the sense of supportive community that makes Madison a special place.
Homelessness is everywhere, but thank goodness for the good people at Madison area churches and the staff and volunteers at Madison area agencies who didn’t stand by and watch people freeze to death during this horribly harsh winter, in the alleyways adjacent to the mega-million glass homes of the more fortunate.
Thanks, Atty. Mohs, for putting this all in perspective!
–John Quinlan, for Forward Forum
