Busloads of Homeless Brought to North Fullerton
Last week one of our Friends was concerned to discover that about 250 homeless people were bused up to EV Free Fullerton church for a few nights a month when the National Guard armory is being used for training.
Of course there is nothing wrong with the church helping these folks get out of the cold for a few weekends a year – private charity is almost always a more effective and efficient way to deliver assistance to the poor.
But we feel that it is important for the neighbors around EV Free to be aware of this emergency shelter in their neighborhood. Concern arises from our Friend who lived near a homeless shelter himself for a time, and had his share of run-ins with drifters late at night. Had he not known that they were from the nearby homeless shelter, he may have taken more forceful action to defend himself.
Presumably the church cannot force the homeless to stay locked up on their property during the night, so a few are bound to wander out into the adjacent neighborhoods. If you live in north Fullerton and you hear someone rummaging through your property in the middle of the night on these weekends, please do not shoot indiscriminately into the darkness. It’s probably just someone who needs help getting back to the shelter.
17 Replies to “Busloads of Homeless Brought to North Fullerton”
“If you live in north Fullerton and you hear someone rummaging through your property in the middle of the night on these weekends, please do not shoot indiscriminately into the darkness. It’s probably just someone who needs help getting back to the shelter.”
Or Don Bankhead searching for pudding cups.
Other Fullerton churches do this too, although probably on a much smaller scale. I don’t think it’s a problem as long as it’s not a secret and the neighbors are aware.
And no matter where you live, you ought to be capable of defending your family at all times.
Martin, “And no matter where you live, you ought to be capable of defending your family at all times.” That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read on this blog, you must be kidding. What if you were weak, old, had no gun and no brass knuckles, then what?
Then you get beat up?
these homeless people should be grateful this church helped them out instead of the fullerton collaborative. Keller would have charged them to sleep in the street claiming it was her pay for helping them.
No Van, Keller would have hit up a bunch of corporate types for some dough claiming it was needed for the homeless and used it to pay her own salary. I think she learned this trick from Lorri Galloway
according to Maynard Dunscan’s view, the church should be given public money and benefits.
EV always reminds me.
Good on EV Free for taking in the homeless.
Well with that big parking garage that seems to to sit empty all week, they have plenty on room for the homeless.
that article is illustrative of a gross and disgusting nimby attitude and quite possibly could make me embarrased to be a fullertonian.
Dear Cheryl, might I suggest cancelling that membership in Over-reactors Anonymous?
Calm down there Hollis, read comment #16.
Cheryl, how could this be considered NIMBYism? All it says is ‘please don’t shoot the homeless people’. Did you read the post or just the headline?
Cheryl, read the post again, “Of course there is nothing wrong with the church helping these folks get out of the cold for a few weekends a year – private charity is almost always a more effective and efficient way to deliver assistance to the poor.
The point of the post was why no one from the city was made aware that EV Free Church was hosting such an event without disclosure for the sake of safety in the event a participant (drifter) took up overnight residence elsewhere.
I drove to the church Saturday night and saw one drifter who had apparently taken the bus ride there and then decided he had other plans to camp out in the shopping center just across the street.
Nothing wrong here, other than if the community was aware of the facts that would probably make the overnight stay a little safer for all. Especially for those who changed lodging plans in midstream.
thanks for the suggestion-but no need to read it a second time. perhaps it’s just the nature of the written word (or my own skeptical interpretation) but to me the tone and tenor of the article was possibly tongue in cheek or even a teensy bit sarcastic however nicely veiled.
my most sincere apologies if i was incorrect.