If I read the previous story on this topic correctly, the city wants to deal with the homeless who occupy the subject lot (for want of somewhere else to be) by fencing them out because the city wants to keep them off the lot inferring they are a public nuisance when they are on the lot. The neighbors are opposed to the fence because it will force the homeless off the lot and out into the neighborhood where they would be... you guessed it....a nuisance. I wonder what Bishop Dudley would say to both the city and the neighbors about what to do for and how to treat the homeless if he could appear at the scheduled meeting.
If I read the previous story on this topic correctly, the city wants to deal with the homeless who occupy the subject lot (for want of somewhere else to be) by fencing them out because the city wants to keep them off the lot inferring they are a public nuisance when they are on the lot. The neighbors are opposed to the fence because it will force the homeless off the lot and out into the neighborhood where they would be... you guessed it....a nuisance. I wonder what Bishop Dudley would say to both the city and the neighbors about what to do for and how to treat the homeless if he could appear at the scheduled meeting.
I was thinking the same thing. So the Catholics own the lot and find the homeless offensive.
Do they think the homeless will just disappear?
The city needs a staging area for the new convention center. They will press the Bishop Dudley house to move creating more growth for downtown
It sounds like SF is leasing the lot? Why?