Grace Shelter capacity cut as camping ban approaches
MORGANTOWN — Jessica Thompson, shelter director for Catholic Charities' Grace Shelter in Hazel's House of Hope, has confirmed that the shelter's capacity has recently been reduced from 28 beds to 19 beds.
The issue comes down to fire code.
'During our evaluation and the measurement of the facility, fire marshals determined that the shelter was operating over capacity,' Morgantown Communications Director Brade Riffee said. 'It's important to note that our fire marshals are working closely with the shelter administration to evaluate alternative solutions and options that might be available.'
It's believed that one of the alternatives under consideration is full-time use of the first floor space that originally served as the Hope Hill Sobering Center, but more recently served as the temporary winter warming shelter — also operated by Catholic Charities.
The city didn't address how the shelter was permitted to operate at a 28-bed capacity since Bartlett House first opened it in 2021.
In addition to the loss of nine beds at Grace Shelter, Project Rainbow Coordinator Erin Shelton said The Rainbow House has also had to reduce capacity in order to meet best practices surrounding space per client. That shelter, which prioritizes individuals in the LGBTQ+ community, now has 22 beds.
Both shelters are full — just as they were prior to the reductions.
'We are full on a nightly basis and we currently have over 20 people on our waiting list,' Shelton said. 'As soon as we move someone into housing, we typically have someone from the waitlist move in on the same day or the following day. We haven't had any significant length of time where we weren't at full capacity since our first month of operations, which was July 2024.'
While there's never a good time to lose community resources, this seems to be a particularly brutal twist of timing.
The citywide camping ban — passed in September but barred from taking effect due to a successful repeal petition — will be implemented after receiving the support of a small majority of the city's voters participating in Tuesday's municipal election.
According to the city, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after the election results are certified. Election canvassing is Monday, meaning the law could be enforced starting June 4.
The ban defines camp/camping to mean 'pitch, erect or occupy camp facilities (tents, temporary structures, etc.) or to use camp paraphernalia (blankets, sleeping bags, tarps, etc.) or both for the purposes of habitation, as evidenced by the use of camp paraphernalia,' and bans it on all public property.
Penalties include a warning on first offense; a fine of up to $200 for a second offense, and a fine of up to $500 and/or up to 30 days in jail for a third offense within one year. Someone subject to a fine or jail under the law can receive alternative sentencing by agreeing to case management to return to stable housing, and/or treatment for substance abuse and/or mental health.
The question going forward is how, and how often, the law will actually be enforced, given the perpetually overwhelmed status of the local shelters.
According to the law, no citation will be issued or penalty imposed unless the person in violation has been offered 'alternative shelter' and refused the offer. An offer of shelter means an alternate location, which may include 'emergency shelter or any alternate indoor or outdoor location where the person may sleep overnight.'
While pinning down the exact number of unhoused individuals in and around Morgantown at any one time is difficult, it's believed to be north of 100. Milan Puskar Health Right Executive Director Laura Jones estimated 130 in August.
Health Right was among the organizations that believed the lack of available beds should have made the camping ban a nonstarter. Project Rainbow was another.
'Project Rainbow is deeply disappointed by the passage of Morgantown's camping ban, especially considering the dire situation I'm describing here with limited availability of shelter beds,' Shelton said. 'This ordinance criminalizes the mere act of survival for people who have nowhere else to go.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Expel all for the misdeeds of a few? That's not the 'Oklahoma Standard'
Just a few years ago, in the fall of 2021, we began welcoming the arrival of what would amount to about 1,800 Afghan refugees into our community. They came at a time when our country was withdrawing its military forces from Afghanistan, allowing the Taliban and its brutal, hardline regime to retake control of that war-ravaged land. Some of the refugees had worked for U.S. and alliance forces and various non-governmental organizations, charities and media outlets operating in the country. They rightly feared Taliban retribution. Gov. Kevin Stitt, working with a Christian organization, Catholic Charities, welcomed the refugees to Oklahoma, as did the state's two Republican senators at the time, James Lankford and Jim Inhofe, and Republican Reps. Frank Lucas, Stephanie Bice and Tom Cole. Support for the Afghans was seen as a concrete example of the "Oklahoma Standard," forged in the aftermath of the tragic Oklahoma City bombing 30 years ago this past April. Maintaining that standard, often expressed as "people helping people," over the past three decades since the bombing has been a source of pride for Oklahomans regardless of their political affiliation, race or ethnic background. There was an earlier and more relevant example, as well, when Oklahoma welcomed thousands of refugees from Vietnam after the fall of Saigon 50 years ago. The thousands of immigrants we accepted then reshaped Oklahoma City in ways that forever changed the city for good. So, what are we to make of our attorney general, Gentner Drummond, who now is saying all Afghan refugees in this country should be expelled? In his public announcement, Drummond said he was following the lead of President Donald Trump in issuing "a proclamation effectively banning Afghan nationals from entering the United States." "I am demanding that Gov. Stitt reject the approval he gave to the Biden Administration so all Afghan refugees can be removed from Oklahoma," said Drummond, who has announced he will be a candidate for governor in 2026. Has Drummond made some sort of political calculation that Oklahoma voters will approve of throwing the Oklahoma Standard out the window and punishing all Afghans for the acts of just a few of them? Drummond is defending his call for expulsion by pointing out that an Afghan refugee shot and wounded two police officers in Virginia in April and that two others in Oklahoma allegedly plotted a mass shooting on Election Day 2024 before being arrested. The attorney general did not elaborate on the legal principle he believes justifies the expulsion of all members of a particular ethnic group — who came to this country legally — because a few members of that group broke the law. Drummond criticized Stitt and former President Joe Biden for "not properly vetting" the Afghans that were admitted, apparently under the illusion that some piece of paper would serve as a guarantee against future law-breaking. The Oklahoman rejects this reasoning. If Drummond is to be our next governor, and early polls show him to be well on that path, we urge him to accept the invitation put forth in a recent op-ed by Veronica Laizure-Henry, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Oklahoma Chapter, to meet with members of the Muslim community and our new Afghan neighbors and learn more about them before making broad, inflammatory deportation demands. We admire many of the stands Drummond has taken since being sworn in as attorney general in 2023, particularly in protecting religious freedom. But we deplore the political posturing and the lack of merit in his generic attack on a group of people who are following the law, contributing to our community, and to whom, in many cases, we owe a debt of gratitude for their actions to aid and protect our servicemembers and other Americans when we were strangers in their land. This editorial was written by William C. Wertz, and represents the position of The Oklahoman editorial board, which includes deputy opinion editor Wertz, opinion editor Clytie Bunyan and executive editor Ray Rivera. This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: Trump and AG Drummond are wrong on Afghan refugees | Editorial
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Another unanimous win for religious freedom at the Supreme Court
Is religious freedom a wedge issue? The unanimous agreement between all the justices in a decision just issued by the U.S. Supreme Court suggests the answer is no. The Court's example provides an important corrective to the framing of some commentators and advocacy groups. The facts of this case initially seem unreal — the state of Wisconsin determined that the Catholic Charities Bureau was not 'religious enough' to qualify for a tax exemption available to religious organizations in the state. Piling on, the Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed because Catholic Charities did not proselytize or exclude non-Catholics from its services. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has now corrected that decision and ruled unanimously that the state cannot prefer one religion over another on the grounds of the church's teachings. The Court's opinion was written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She points out, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' The state had denied the exemption to Catholic Charities simply because the group did not follow the practice of some other churches, which proselytize while providing social services and serve only fellow members. Since doing either of these things would violate the beliefs of the organization, it was treated differently from other religious organizations solely because of this belief. Justice Sotomayor's opinion summarizes the legal standard: 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.' The Court rightly concludes that Wisconsin had no compelling reason that would justify this disparate treatment. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the Court's opinion and wrote separately to note another problem with the Wisconsin court's opinion. The Court treated Catholic Charities as separate from the local Catholic Diocese. This is contrary to the 'religious perspective' of the church, which is owed deference by the state. Ignoring the church's beliefs violated the First Amendment guarantee 'to religious institutions [of] broad autonomy to conduct their internal affairs and govern themselves.' Religion and claims for religious freedom are sometimes characterized as divisive issues. When a presidential commission on religious freedom was recently created, some commentators charged that this would undermine the separation of church and state. The Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that religious freedom issues need not be divisive. The clear constitutional protection of the right of people of faith to live and of religious organizations to operate consistent with their beliefs is right there in the text of the First Amendment. This is a threshold principle that no government can ignore without endangering the most basic liberties of its citizens. This is especially true given the fact that verbal expressions of personal faith have defined modern protections for freedom of speech, and gatherings of members of organized religion form the foundations for protections of freedom of association. State and federal lawmakers should ensure that their actions are consistent with this guarantee. Additionally, reporters, commentators, politicians and advocacy groups should take note that protecting religious freedom is typically a consensus issue for the U.S. Supreme Court, whose role is to ensure that the First Amendment guarantee is protected in legal disputes. In the 12 religious freedom cases decided since 2015, four have been unanimous and four more have garnered only one or two dissenting votes. There are, obviously, some cases where the justices don't reach consensus, but these cases should not cause us to lose sight of the strong support religious freedom claims typically receive. The Court's support for religious freedom is a bright spot in our current political climate. It demonstrates the wisdom of the Framers of the Bill of Rights in including specific religious exercise protections and vindicates one of the nation's highest aspirations: that people of faith should be free to act on their beliefs without interference or discrimination.
Wall Street Journal
4 days ago
- Wall Street Journal
U.S. Supreme Court 9, Wisconsin Supreme Court 0
Justice Sonia Sotomayor's unanimous opinion last week in favor of a Catholic Charities nonprofit was a good win for religious liberty, and we've already discussed what it says about the Supreme Court. Permit us to add a final thought, which is that the 9-0 decision is a humiliation for the Wisconsin Supreme Court's new 4-3 liberal majority. The state jurists had denied a religious tax exemption to a local diocese's Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) and associated groups. Their activities were 'secular in nature' and didn't involve teaching the faith or supplying religious materials, the Wisconsin court said. It rejected almost out of hand the First Amendment argument that ultimately won the day.
