City failing its homeless

So. Praise for Charlottesville’s yurt plan was premature.

The city now has decided not to erect the shelter for a woman living on an overgrown lot on Angus Road.

Meanwhile, more homeless people are going without help due to city actions that closed a much needed shelter.

The yurt is a tent, far more spacious and substantial than the camp tent Pauline E. Mallard now occupies. It had been proposed as a solution to Ms. Mallard’s problems and her neighbors’.

Charlottesville was willing to pay $10,000 for the yurt, which would have been owned by Habitat for Humanity.

For some 30 years, ever since her home burned, Ms. Mallard has lived on her overgrown, litter-strewn lot in tents or old vehicles — interspersed with time in public housing or shelters. She is now elderly and disabled.

Neighbors, while concerned for her health and safety, are also concerned about the condition of her property and its effect on their community.

Other efforts to reach some sort of accommodation have come to naught over the years. This proposal would have provided the yurt with the help of Habitat and a local church group.

But city officials pulled that plan, saying they had received little support for it from the neighborhood.

They also might have gotten little support from Ms. Mallard.

“There are a number of issues regarding the track record of the individual and the use of city funds,” said Jim Tolbert, the city’s head planner.

The Progress had praised compassionate efforts to help Ms. Mallard (“Let’s hope the yurt works,” June 1), but also raised questions about the feasibility of the plan.

The impulse to help Ms. Mallard was certainly compassionate and admirable. Nothing should take away from that.

But we continue to wonder why city leaders also failed to assist the Hope Center for the homeless.

The shelter ran into several problems. First, it was found to be operating outside the city zoning ordinance. After some public pressure, city officials appeared amenable to at least considering ways to overcome the zoning issue.

But a building inspection also revealed code deficiencies — such as the lack of a sprinkler system for the shelter, which served up to 40 homeless people.

Operators from Covenant Church, with assistance from other churches, had already poured thousands of dollars into keeping the shelter open. They were tapped out and could not afford expensive upgrades.

Closure of the center has put dozens of men and women out on the street, living on vacant lots, under bridges, in old vehicles if they can find them.

One woman told The Progress she had purchased a $17 tent and will spend her nights now in the woods.

If the city were willing to pay $10,000 for a spacious yurt for one woman, why could it not have provided assistance to keep Hope Center open — or worked with other charities, as it did for Ms. Mallard, to create a network of support?

Charlottesville was prepared to go to great lengths to get one woman out of a camp tent, while making choices that evicted dozens of others from shelter and sent them into camp tents — or old cars, or maybe sleeping under the stars.

Where is the compassion in that?