The agreement between the pastor of Dad’s Place and the city of Bryan comes with conditions.

  • @Rivalarrival
    link
    104 months ago

    It’s likely zoned commercial. It looks like it operates out of a retail storefront. Whatever it is zoned, the fact is that the city has no problem with typical church services: many members of the public congregating within the building.

    They only had a problem when a handful of people stayed the night on an emergency basis.

    • @BossDj@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      -44 months ago

      It has alley access behind the storefront haha.

      Anyway, I’m getting hit for this one, but my intention was to defend that the city wasn’t just being sick, anti homeless villains. There were warnings, etc. The building next door has people who stay overnight (it’s a halfway house), so this couple COULD have done some paperwork, petitions, or upgrades, but instead chose to hire extreme right wing lawyers to make a media circus

      • @Rivalarrival
        link
        54 months ago

        You’re right, you’re going to get hit for that one.

        If the city were arguing that the building itself was not safe for occupancy, you’d have a point. If they were trying to shut down the entire facility, OK. But they weren’t. The problems didn’t come up until they opened their doors 24/7.

        • @BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          -34 months ago

          Deregulate everything then I guess if a person wants to do something on a whim. Fuck you, safety professionals, I know better than you.

          The charges were dropped because the church caved to the city requirements.

          The church agreed to stop housing people until they get the correct permits, which they could have done to begin with. Permits exist so that a professional can inspect and deem something correctly equipped. The church made all of the necessary fixes to the building that were required to make it safe, which again they could have done before. I’d wager that the community or city itself might have tossed money their way to get it done faster had they tried instead of pushing their anti government rhetoric.

          They hired a political action cash grab hack “lawyer group” that made up lies and got the media to attack the city. For example, the building next door isn’t a come and go homeless shelter that’s overwhelmed. It’s a halfway house with an interview process and a limited number of people live there longer term. And no, they didn’t quickly react to open their doors because it was freezing out and they needed to save lives. They’ve been doing this, and had opportunities to fix the problem. They chose to ignore codes.

          I’m not trying to be insensitive to homeless. They deserve shelter without strings attached (fuck the “you can come in, but cold turkey your addiction!” bullshit). And even though I hate these blue lives matter assholes running the church, they seemed to have good intentions with this situation (but who knows, I don’t trust extremists).

          But this was an easily rectifiable situation that they decided to go “muh constitution” instead of working with the city.

      • ArtieShaw
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        Thanks for digging into this a little further. It seems like small town news stories that get national attention don’t always paint a full picture, particularly when there’s an obvious moral high ground and an obvious victim or villain. I had several questions, because the story wasn’t adding up.

        What sort of monster would object to sheltering homeless in a cold snap? The entire city government, including the fire department?

        There’s an established shelter next door. Why did no one object to that? <thanks for answering this one, btw>

        Since when did small towns in northwest Ohio start persecuting churches for no apparent reason? (for anyone out of the US, this population tends to be deep red GOP, very devout churchgoers, etc.)

        This isn’t the first time there has been a cold spell. It happens at least once a year in January or February. Do the homeless in this tiny town just freeze to death every year?

        There’s clearly a lot more to the story, but with national coverage like this I’d guess they were able to take in enough donations to cover basic repairs to the property.

        • @BossDj@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          I don’t see it as government refusing to allow shelter in a cold snap or persecuting the church. They didn’t go kick everyone out. The city gave notices that in order to do so, the building must be up to code. I read it as they supported the venture, but wanted the safety in place just like anywhere else, which the church ignored more than once.

          Pre-national attention they could have done this. Pre “cold snap” they could have done this. The couple (a husband and wife run the church) did a ton of investing in this building, installing showers and rooms, etc. They just ignored the safety pieces that they decided weren’t important.

          Next door is less a shelter than halfway house. It has around a dozen people at any given time who live there long term and who are screened and only allowed to stay if they promise to praise the Lord and volunteer at a church (this is not hyperbole). They do not take in people during a cold snap.

          I’m not sure about the general homeless situation in Ohio. Most states open winter shelters during cold snaps, which I’m sure Ohio did, but tons of them can require no needles, drug use, etc so the people just don’t go. I don’t know if that’s the case here.

          However, when I was looking into that halfway house, it seems tons of people used to wait around a nearby park as they waiting for their appointments, and could wait several days hoping for a spot. This seemed to be at least a portion of the church population