Even during the daylight hours of January,
Christmas lights twinkle on some homes in Springfield’s Oak
Ridge neighborhood. In one yard, a partial Nativity scene features
Joseph and Mary, kneeling in prayer. The Christ child is
conspicuously missing. All is understandably quiet here on a drizzly,
cool weekday morning. No children play on backyard swing sets, few
cars enter the gates of the oft-visited Oak Ridge Cemetery, and the
parking lot of the Howard Johnson’s, next door to the site of
proposed Salvation Army shelter on J. David Jones Parkway, is
almost empty. A little more than a mile away, at Sixth
and Carpenter streets, midmorning traffic whizzes by the
Springfield Salvation Army building as men unload a truck
emblazoned with the organization’s trademark red shield.
Outside, the place is bustling; inside, it’s bursting at the
seams. The Salvation Army has wanted to expand
operations for two-and-a-half years, but, as in a game of keep-away, no matter what the
Salvation Army has proposed, someone objects to some piece of the
plan — all while being careful to laud the
organization’s history of service to the community and
overall mission. Groups fighting the Salvation Army relocation
can’t seem to decide what they’re opposing. Are they
worried that kids will be crossing the busy thoroughfare to shoot
hoops, or are they really just afraid that bums will use the
cemetery as a toilet? Is it concern about safety — or just a
case of good old-fashioned not-in-my-backyard militancy? At the same time, the Salvation Army seems to
be gambling that just doing everything in its power is enough to
eliminate any problem that might come with an organization that
provides, among other services, emergency shelter each day for at
least 40 members of Springfield’s homeless population. Although at times the dialog between the
Salvation Army and opposition groups has been acrimonious, to say
the least, the community’s overall appreciation for the
organization has diminished little. This season’s annual Tree of Lights campaign exceeded its goal
by $62,000. The matter of expansion goes before the
Springfield City Council for a fourth time next week, but that
doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be settled — the
courts might have the final say. Regardless of the outcome of
Tuesday’s council meeting, one thing is certain: The
Salvation Army has taken one hell of a beating in recent months,
for reasons that still aren’t clear.
The road to new Salvation Army digs
has been long, rough, and rocky. Plans for the new facility have been in the
works since 2003, when independent consultants decided that the
organization could make the biggest impact on the north side of
town. According to Salvation Army officials, the organization
served more than 400 North End residents in 2005. Nevertheless, the Oak Ridge Neighborhood
Association, which represents residents in the area where the
Salvation Army wants to move, has been the most vehement objector.
As far as the members of ORNA were concerned,
the most objectionable aspect of the Salvation Army’s plan
was a proposed shelter for approximately 100 homeless women, men,
and children. Then, last month, Mayor Tim Davlin suggested a plan
that involves leaving the shelter downtown but moving forward with
building the community center on J. David Jones Parkway. But that hasn’t helped ORNA president
Phil Douglas sleep any better. “We find ourselves feeling like the city
is trying to do a runaround on the neighborhood association to
avoid a lawsuit,” he says. Furthermore, Douglas says, issues of ingress
and egress have yet to be resolved. Because the J. David Jones
Parkway is a four-lane highway without sidewalks, he says, the area
is dangerous for those who will use the facility, particularly
children. The current proposal asks the council to
“down zone” the lot for the construction of a
building resembling a modern high school, complete with computer and
game rooms, basketball courts, a clinic, and a café. Unlike most other emergency shelters in
Springfield, the Salvation Army could also accommodate families in
its facility. But families who live in the area have
reservations of their own. A Cub Scout den mother who lives in the
nearby Enos Park neighborhood tells Illinois
Times that she expects an increase
in residential burglaries and confrontations between neighbors and
Salvation Army clients. Such attitudes, says Salvation Army attorney
and board member Todd Turner, result from prejudice against
lower-income people, the homeless, and the disabled. “I’m shocked, frankly, by the
callousness people have shown toward their fellow human
beings,” Turner says. “I’ve been in meetings
where [shelter residents] have been called bums — and
that’s one of the nicer things I’ve heard.”
The mayor’s proposal puts the
neighborhood association and veterans’ organizations, who
also oppose the facility, in an awkward position. “If we state openly that we are against
the so-called compromise that Mayor Davlin has proposed . . . we
come off looking pretty bad,” Douglas says. Now, they won’t have to. On Monday, the
Salvation Army advisory board voted unanimously to stick to its
original plan and relocate wholly to the North End. The head of the Salvation Army here, Capt.
Deon Oliver, outlined the reasons, most of which were economic: Oliver says that the organization would forgo
an estimated $500,000 from the sale of its property on Sixth
Street, which is located in Springfield’s recently designated
medical district. The organization would also be stuck with an
estimated $500,000 in costs to rehabilitate the existing facility.
Plus, Oliver says, the Salvation Army has already paid $7,000 in
consulting fees. Last, Oliver says, splitting the two
facilities would limit the extent and quality of programming the
Salvation Army could offer to members of the community. “We maintain that the Walnut [J. David
Jones Parkway] site is still the best property for the best price
where we can do the most good compared to any of the other
alternate sites that has been made known to us or that we ourselves
have explored,” Oliver told members of his board. In November, Douglas sent the Salvation Army a
list of 12 alternative sites. The neighborhood-association leader
acknowledged in his letter that the availability of some of the
properties was uncertain. On reviewing the list, the Salvation Army
determined that some of the properties were too small and one was
simply a Web address — not exactly, Oliver believes, an act
of good faith. “It was made clear to us that the only
compromise they were willing to consider was ‘go away
completely,’ ” Turner says. “When there’s only one side
willing to compromise, meetings don’t mean very
much.”
Douglas insists that ORNA
isn’t made up of NIMBY Nazis. The site on J. David Jones, he
says, “is quite unique based upon its close proximity to the
Oak Ridge Cemetery and also the war memorials.” At one point, the Major Byrd Hi-Rise, on the
city’s East Side, was considered, but Ward 2 Ald. Frank
McNeil wasn’t on board when the idea first surfaced a year
and a half ago. McNeil supports a compromise, noting that a
number of social-service agencies already exist in the area where
Major Byrd stands, which is one of the best parts of his ward for
homeownership. McNeil believes that his constituents have been more
than accommodating to organizations looking to locate to the East
Side. “It’s piling on. Everything with a
negative connotation, they keep dumping on the East Side,”
McNeil says. Ward 9 Ald. Tom Selinger, who has said that
he’ll follow his constituents’ will but doesn’t
want to drag the city into a lawsuit, hasn’t spoken to either
side or made up his mind as to how he’ll vote. Joe Bartolomucci, who represents Ward 5, where
the Salvation Army is now located, says that he is “adamantly
opposed” to their relocation, having grown distrustful of
what he perceives as the organization’s attempts to twist the
city’s arm. Likewise, Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards
doesn’t appreciate what he sees as threats. He is baffled as
to why the Salvation Army has ignored its own needs assessment,
which recommended relocating to within 1 mile of the current
facility, in the medical district. He echoes ORNA’s Douglas: “If you
vote no, it looks like you’re voting against the Salvation
Army.”
But, he says, “You gotta take the name
out of it. This is a zoning issue — and this is a bad location.”
One might wonder how Oliver, a West
Sider who’s lived in Springfield just two-and-a-half years,
could possibly know what’s best for the community. His answer is simple: It’s not about
him. The core of the conflict, he says, are very
different premises of the two arguments. As he sees it, the city
leadership has identified a need to address the city’s
homeless situation, and the Salvation Army is answering the call. On the other hand, he says, “The
homeowners’ association says, ‘The Salvation Army wants . . .’ —
and I say that is flawed.”
Although Oliver gives Davlin credit for the
role he has played in recent weeks, he wishes that more had been
done sooner and says that a “lack of intestinal
fortitude” kept city leaders from doing the right thing. Turner, the Salvation Army’s attorney,
maintains that the organization has not threatened to sue to the
city. The property owner, Glen Garrison, could bring a suit —
though he won’t even say whether he’s exploring that
possibility. Garrison does, however, deny that he’s
looking to unload the property on the Salvation Army, which would
pay in cash, because financing for the land, which suffers from
poor soil quality and the presence of mines, couldn’t
otherwise be secured. But regardless of whether the Salvation Army
takes legal action, civil penalties for violating fair-housing laws
may be imposed on the city by the federal government. “We’re trying to point out to city
that this is what the law says, and you need to comply with the
law,” Turner says. “Is the city saying they don’t
want the Salvation Army here?” he asks. “I’m
concerned that if we don’t get compromise, we might not find
anyplace.”
Oliver is more calmly optimistic. He has, he
says, the utmost faith in God and the mission of the Salvation
Army.
This article appears in Jan 12-18, 2006.
