
The people of Carbondale, Illinois are having some serious and often contentious public dialog about homelessness in the city. The current conversation centers around the future of Good Samaritan Ministries.
Good Samaritan Ministries provides transitional housing, food, and emergency shelter and assistance to people in need. They’ve been offered the gift of a large new facility on the edge of a residential neighborhood at the corner of Oakland and Freeman. This building is the soon-to-close University Baptist Church building that they currently use as a food pantry.
In order to use this building to serve the homeless, Good Sam will need to apply for zoning variances. They will be presenting their case to the planning commission on Wednesday, October 29 at 6 pm at the Carbondale Civic Center.
Some local residents have expressed support for the plan. However, other local residents have expressed concern that moving Good Sam to this location will create a variety of problems for the neighborhood. These problems include the risk of lowering property values and the risk of having more homeless people walking through the neighborhood, possibly affecting public safety.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
I’d like to start by sharing the statements of three people who have valuable insights into the situation:
- The president of Good Sam offering some basic information (more detail in the comments).
- A resident of the neighborhood who is in favor of Good Sam moving there.
- A Carbondale resident who expresses reasonable concerns about the proposal.
I have no special expertise in this area, so you can take everything I say about it with a grain of salt. I’m a big advocate for democracy, though. So I believe that everyone who lives in a city should stay informed on public affairs and make their voices heard, especially on issues that affect them.
My current perspective on this proposal is that I fully support it. But I also see some valid concerns being raised about it.
I would like to see those concerns addressed publicly before and during the planning commission meeting. Both because I see some merit to the concerns themselves and because the people who live in a neighborhood should have a voice in major planning decisions that affect their neighborhood.
I used to live in the neighborhood in question. I still have personal and financial connections to that neighborhood. I currently live about three blocks from the site in question. I jog across the street from it every morning.
I can understand why some people would be concerned about this change and how it will impact their neighborhood. I can also understand why some people would be skeptical of the sustainability of Good Sam moving into a larger building at a time when funding for social services is unfortunately likely to trend downward, not upward.
Will this change slash the property values in one of the only neighborhoods in Carbondale that is predominantly owner-occupied housing in good condition? Will it set up Good Sam to fail by giving them a larger building with more expenses and declining funding?
These are valid questions. Asking these questions doesn’t necessarily indicate a lack of care for the homeless. It also doesn’t necessarily indicate that the proper response to these questions is to say “no” to the proposal outright. It only means that people are asking if this specific course of action can be carried out in a way that is beneficial (or at least neutral) for everyone affected.
We absolutely need to do more (and better) to provide support to the homeless in this city. But what action the city takes in response to this specific proposal will depend on how these questions about the zoning variances are answered.
I support this project, and the necessary zoning variances, for a few reasons.
One is that the overview I’ve heard from the president of Good Sam makes a lot of sense to me. The current Good Sam facility is an aging “albatross” that is in frequent need of expensive repairs just to continue operating. The new location is said to be in good condition due to good caretaking by University Baptist Church. Therefore, it may be more sustainable for Good Sam than their current location. As for funding, I’m told that Good Sam receives state funding based on how many people it serves. So moving to a larger location that serves more people could actually improve rather than strain their funding.
That’s my take on the sustainability question. I haven’t reviewed their documentation of these claims and I’m honestly not the most qualified person to do so. But if the board president’s overview of the proposal is borne out by the documentation, then it sounds like a great move for Good Sam and the population it serves. A much better choice than turning down the property.
But what about the neighborhood? That seems to be the main point of contention. Will this proposed new zoning and use harm property values and public safety in the neighborhood?
Some supporters of the proposal have rejected the idea of even considering the effect on property values. When we’re talking about a project that’s feeding and housing the unhoused and hungry, it can seem callous to weigh that against property values. Providing housing and food for the unhoused and hungry should take precedence over preserving a bit of equity for the people who own their own homes, right?
But the people who live in that neighborhood are people too. Their needs and interests should also be considered. Their voices should be heard. If this change does have a significant impact on property values and public safety, the neighborhood will no longer be viable. People will leave. Some may even find themselves in financial distress if the value of their property drops significantly.
Having said that, I’ve already seen and heard a few good responses to these concerns.
From what I’ve heard and read, facilities that serve the homeless can have a neutral or even positive impact on property values in the long run if they’re well-managed and contribute neutrally or positively to the overall character of the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. Having a single well-maintained facility on the edge of a neighborhood that is otherwise full of quality owner-occupied housing may be a better planning choice than concentrating all of the low-income housing in another part of town, in which case a spiral of neighborhood decline may set in.
There also may be ways for this proposed use to actively benefit the neighborhood. For example, if they use the large grassy area next to the parking lot as a community garden space, as at least one person has suggested, that could provide multiple benefits for both Good Sam and the neighborhood. Or they could use that green space for any other reasonable purpose requested by the neighborhood.
Several people have also pointed out that the only other option on the table for this site right now is closure. Will the neighborhood benefit from having a large vacant property? Will anyone buy it for another use? Large properties that remain vacant for extended periods of time are notorious for bringing down neighboring property values.
In other words, we can see the potential risk, assess how mild or serious it may be, and take action to mitigate it or turn it into a positive. Rather than simply saying no to the proposal outright because we’re afraid of a perceived or actual risk.
I don’t have all of the answers. And I don’t think anyone has all of the answers. That’s why I encourage people to talk with each other, the planning commission, and the City Council about this proposal.
I’m seeing a lot of knee-jerk responses in both/all directions. What we really need here is serious discussion of the pros and cons. I personally support this move based on what I’ve heard so far. But I’m open to new information and perspectives. I think that the entire community will benefit if the “pro” and “con” people have a serious discussion of this proposal rather than just choosing sides and hurling insults at each other.
And regardless of how this particular zoning proposal is resolved, we need to have some serious conversations in this city. Both about the city’s current approach to zoning (there are other approaches) and about how community members and city government are responding to the crisis of homelessness in our city and region.
This is a good example of why I believe Carbondale residents should organize a monthly or twice-monthly assembly to discuss city policy. This assembly would meet at the Civic Center and address many of the same questions and concerns as City Council, but it would be organized and facilitated by community members. This would allow for more thorough and inclusive discussion of city policy, including but not limited to how Carbondale is responding to homelessness in the city. It would hopefully be a more productive approach than bickering with each other on social media. I would like to work with other people in Carbondale to organize such an assembly.
The broader crisis of poverty and homelessness isn’t going away. In fact, I anticipate tremendous escalating strain on the local economy and the state, national, and global economies in the coming months and years. We will likely have many more homeless people in our town in the near future, and we’re already unable to provide adequate and humane support for the ones we do have.
What will really help Carbondale in the long run is ensuring that we are a city where everyone is housed and fed. I have plenty of ideas about how to do this in the long run, both in terms of boosting the local economy and providing support for those in need.
In the meantime, it all starts with recognizing that everyone who lives in Carbondale and cares about this city needs to have some serious conversations about how we respond to poverty in this city. For the good of the populations being served and the community as a whole, we need to devote serious attention and resources to the task of organizing successful and sustainable programs of support for those in need.
My name is Treesong. I’m a parent, author, talk radio host, and Real Life Superhero. Follow me on Facebook, Bluesky, Instagram, and Ko-fi for my latest climate fiction releases and superhero adventures. Sign up for my newsletter to receive free climate fiction in your inbox. Check out my bookshop for climate change books, including reading lists for climate fiction, climate nonfiction, and climate poetry!