Ohio pastor arraigned after being charged for housing homeless at church

[probinson]

Well, there is the neighboring shelter that is complying with the law.

If you'd read the article, you'd know that the neighboring shelter is at capacity and does not have room for any more people, which is why they are appreciative of what the church is doing.

From the article in the OP:

The director of operations at the Sanctuary of Williams County Homeless Shelter supports what Avell's church is doing, according to First Liberty Institute.​

​

"The city, churches and community in general should work together. We need to work together to help people in need," the director said. "There is nowhere else for these people in Williams County to go. We have to turn away around 600 people every year."​

 

[Hank77]

Why are you pretending that all of these corporate entities are just anxiously awaiting a church to ask them to give them free stuff?



We once had our local Walmart donate a bunch of cups and plates to a youth function.

Not sure what your point is.



Wind chills below zero, and you want people sleeping outside in tents next to blazing hot propane heaters? How is that any "safer" than being inside a warm building sleeping on the floor? And I'm sure it's against zoning violations to have people set up tent cities in their backyards. Just imagine the complaints from the neighbors.



What I find most fascinating about this discussion is that while this church is actively doing something to help these people, there are countless others sitting in their warm homes on the Internet doing nothing but criticizing.

Well, I don't find your lack of suggestions very encouraging either.
Tents with propane heaters, actually quite cozy we have one for our ice fishing house, is what is being provided for the homeless in many cities. Some people prefer that to sleeping next to strangers on mats in a building.

On a dead-end street in north Denver, migrants are surviving winter with the help of an army of volunteers

As the city reinstates time limits on hotel stays, volunteers are making plans to help hundreds more migrants in camps

coloradosun.com

 

[A2SG]

Who says it's a bad option? It's certainly preferable to having people freezing outside.

Comparing a bad idea to a worse idea doesn't make the bad idea any better.

What would that be? The only thing that helps homeless in freezing cold temperatures is a warm place to go. That is the church. Now I know you and others think they should just "rent several houses", but as has been pointed out, many churches just barely clear the basic operating expenses. This is why I said in an earlier post you seem detached from reality. The reality is that a small church like Dad's Place almost certainly does not have the resources to rent or buy another facility.

So what can they do to help people who are freezing besides opening their doors to let them have a warm place to stay?

Again, I have to ask: what have they done up to this point?

See, churches raise funds all the time, for any number of reasons. Sometimes, just for operating expenses, sometimes for charitable purposes. Heck, some churches are so good at it, they can afford multiple million-dollar homes, expensive cars and even private jets for their pastors. One church, I seem to recall, even had plans to build an amusement park with all the funds they were able to raise. (Though, as I recall, that plan was scrapped because the pastor defrauded the church and embezzled milllions from it, so, um, maybe don't do that.)

Churches often ask their congregation to donate their time as well. Surely, this church's congregation has a contractor or two among them that might be able to donate time to bring the building up to code, and make applying for a variance possible. And that's just one possible example. Who knows what might happen if they actually got off the perpetual victimization train and tried to find solutions!

-- A2SG, hey, you never know until you try, right?

 

[rambot]

Note:
THIS is actual oppression.

 

[A2SG]

What I find most fascinating about this discussion is that while this church is actively doing something to help these people, there are countless others sitting in their warm homes on the Internet doing nothing but criticizing.

So what are you doing, then?

-- A2SG, since you brought it up....

 

[SimplyMe]

I suspect that there are other things that needed done besides filing paperwork in order to apply for and receive a zoning variance.

There are precious few details to this story. We have a statement from the police, an official complaint and an interview with the pastor. That's about it. It's hard to say what the church has or has not done or why the city felt it necessary to intervene in an attempt to kick the homeless out into the street. So we're all filling in the gaps in our heads. Some people seem more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the city government. But I've dealt with inept city government, which inevitably biases my position.

But at the end of the day, I simply cannot prioritize compliance with zoning laws over the wellbeing of people.

I can't recall which article states it but the city made clear that the Church has not applied for a zoning variance -- something that could go a long way to have "fixed" the problem. I'm not sure why you think it would be so difficult to apply for the zoning variance or what the church had to do that would take priority (from the articles, it sounds as if the church has done nothing).

 

[probinson]

Well, I don't find your lack of suggestions very encouraging either.

I think the city has probably overreacted. But I don't know, and neither do you.

Tents with propane heaters, actually quite cozy we have one for our ice fishing house, is what is being provided for the homeless in many cities. Some people prefer that to sleeping next to strangers on mats in a building.

Not sure why people would find sleeping in tents next to strangers preferable to sleeping in a building next to strangers, but to each their own I suppose.

 

[probinson]

Again, I have to ask: what have they done up to this point?

None of us know. It's all speculation what they have or have not done up to this point.

 

[probinson]

So what are you doing, then?

I'm commending the church for doing what they can to help.

 

[probinson]

I can't recall which article states it but the city made clear that the Church has not applied for a zoning variance --

I'm going to need a source for that.

The closest thing (the only thing?) we have is the police saying this:

"A reasonable amount of time was given for both the tenant and property owner to fix the issues. Due to the safety of all involved the city moved forward with filing charges."​

We know nothing from this statement. What is "a reasonable amount of time" and what "issues" needed to be "fixed"? The statement does not say, so we are left to speculate. I've seen nothing about the city saying the church hasn't applied for a zoning variance, nor that the issues would be resolved if they did. Unless you have a source that shows that, I'm going to have to say that's completely made up.

I'm not sure why you think it would be so difficult to apply for the zoning variance or what the church had to do that would take priority (from the articles, it sounds as if the church has done nothing).

There is nothing in the article that makes me believe the church has done "nothing". In fact, the article from the OP says this:

"We hope Mayor Carrie Schlade will drop all of these charges and begin talking with us about how Pastor Chris and Dad’s Place will continue to contribute to the wonderful community of Bryan," he added.​

​

So to me, it sounds like the church would like to work with the city, but the city has decided to go the route of filing charges instead.

The truth is, none of us know the specifics. You say it "sounds as if the church has done nothing", but the only reason to believe that is if you believe the statement from the police that says they were giving "a reasonable amount of time" to comply. But I want to know what "a reasonable amount of time" is and what exactly they needed to do and what it would cost to comply. I shared earlier in the thread my personal experience with my local government giving me what they called "a reasonable amount of time" (i.e. 30 days) to come up with $2,500 to "fix" my cracked sidewalks. So obviously, that experience biases me to side with the people that are actually doing something to help people rather than prioritizing zoning violations.

 

[keith99]

Does anyone seriously think the church in question has done anything substantial to come up to code and then fails to point that out to any of the many news sources that are writing stories about the situation? And considering the tone of most of the articles it is even more farfetched for the news sources to fail to note it if they were told.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Does anyone seriously think the church in question has done anything substantial to come up to code and then fails to point that out to any of the many news sources that are writing stories about the situation? And considering the tone of most of the articles it is even more farfetched for the news sources to fail to note it if they were told.

Yeah, when you interview the pastor and his only defense is that he's made a few repairs but the city is out to get him, it's hard to take him seriously.

 

[probinson]

Does anyone seriously think the church in question has done anything substantial to come up to code and then fails to point that out to any of the many news sources that are writing stories about the situation?

Couldn't you say the same about the city? If these are minor issues that can be easily resolved by the church to come into compliance, don't you think it would be in their best interest to point that out to any of the many news sources that are writing stories about this situation?

I guess it comes down to who you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to. Rather unsurprisingly, you choose to give the government the benefit of the doubt. I choose to give the church that is helping homeless people the benefit of the doubt. But neither of us knows anything definitive. It's all speculation.

 

[probinson]

The city of Bryan, OH has issued a press release that provides some facts. The entire press release is here:

https://www.cityofbryan.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/press-release.pdf

The press release goes into detail about the violations. The church has addressed 13 of 18 of those violations. Some of those violations were indeed serious and needed to be addressed.

For those saying the church could just apply for a zoning variance, the release states the following:

Pastor Avell and Dad's Place were given notice to cease the violations of the zoning code, and the City offered to assist in placing any persons living or staying there. Pastor Avell, soon after receiving notice of the initial violations in November 2023, inquired as to whether he could get a conditional use permit to allow continued residential use on the first floor. He was informed administratively that residential use in a C-3 is prohibited, and cannot be approved as a conditional use.​

So we can stop talking about zoning variances, because the city says that cannot be approved.

The city must be feeling the heat from the media coverage, because in this press release, they go out of their way to let you know just how much they care about the homeless.

While the City has been addressing these issues, it has been accused of failing to support the homeless. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, a homeless shelter, The Sanctuary Homeless Shelter, that fully complies with the zoning code and fire code operates next to Dad's Place. The City works cooperatively with this shelter on an ongoing basis as it serves this population well while doing so in a safe and legal manner.​

​

The City has been in contact with The Sanctuary to determine if there is room for people coming to Dad's Place. Also, there are places in the City where Dad's Place likely could operate a safe homeless shelter that would be consistent with the zoning code. For example, the City also contacted individuals in charge of selling a facility in Bryan that, pending zoning approval, could be used by Dad's Place. This facility is in an area of the City that would permit individuals to sleep in the building. The City, additionally, has also sought assistance from various social services organizations to find help for the homeless.​

​

It would be in the best interests of everyone involved if the church and the city would work together to come up with a solution instead of filing criminal charges and lawsuits against each other.

 

[Hank77]

Not sure why people would find sleeping in tents next to strangers preferable to sleeping in a building next to strangers, but to each their own I suppose.

They don't have to sleep with strangers when in their tent. It doesn't seem like you have done any research at all on this subject.

On a dead-end street in north Denver, migrants are surviving winter with the help of an army of volunteers

As the city reinstates time limits on hotel stays, volunteers are making plans to help hundreds more migrants in camps

coloradosun.com

 

[SimplyMe]

I'm going to need a source for that.

The closest thing (the only thing?) we have is the police saying this:

"A reasonable amount of time was given for both the tenant and property owner to fix the issues. Due to the safety of all involved the city moved forward with filing charges."​

We know nothing from this statement. What is "a reasonable amount of time" and what "issues" needed to be "fixed"? The statement does not say, so we are left to speculate. I've seen nothing about the city saying the church hasn't applied for a zoning variance, nor that the issues would be resolved if they did. Unless you have a source that shows that, I'm going to have to say that's completely made up.



There is nothing in the article that makes me believe the church has done "nothing". In fact, the article from the OP says this:

"We hope Mayor Carrie Schlade will drop all of these charges and begin talking with us about how Pastor Chris and Dad’s Place will continue to contribute to the wonderful community of Bryan," he added.​

​

So to me, it sounds like the church would like to work with the city, but the city has decided to go the route of filing charges instead.

The truth is, none of us know the specifics. You say it "sounds as if the church has done nothing", but the only reason to believe that is if you believe the statement from the police that says they were giving "a reasonable amount of time" to comply. But I want to know what "a reasonable amount of time" is and what exactly they needed to do and what it would cost to comply. I shared earlier in the thread my personal experience with my local government giving me what they called "a reasonable amount of time" (i.e. 30 days) to come up with $2,500 to "fix" my cracked sidewalks. So obviously, that experience biases me to side with the people that are actually doing something to help people rather than prioritizing zoning violations.

My apologies, I apparently was remembering something else. Having said that, these weren't minor issues that they needed to fix and apparently the church has done some work to fix the issues -- but they still had some rather major issues that weren't being resolved. Per various articles, the city found 18 serious violations and gave the Church roughly 45 days to fix them. Among these was a propane stove, complete with a portable propane tank, being used inside the church in a room without adequate ventilation. Another was an improperly installed gas dryer -- and in the last inspection (Jan 16) it actually had formed a gas leak. Either of those could have destroyed the church, and those in it, with a fire. From what I've found, there should be yet another inspection today and, as of the last inspection, I believe there were only 5 serious violations left (though the "city" may have solved one of the issues when they fixed the gas leak last week).

From what I'm reading of the issues, these aren't just minor things that needed to be fixed that the city has had issues with -- and apparently some of them (improperly installed dryer, propane tank being stored/used inside the building) were the city trying to make "cheap" upgrades to provide services for the homeless and creating safety issues for themselves and nearby buildings. It seems to me, with some of the issues that needed to be fixed, the city had good reason for wanting the shelter shut down until some of these fixes were accomplished.

 

[rambot]

1) The thread title is salacious and imprecise. It wasn't shut down for housing homeless people. It was shut down for doing so in a space that was deemed to not be safe.

2) It seems odd that, to solve this simple problem, the church could have EASILY invested a bit to make the required changes. I don't know why they didn't do that. I really hope it wasn't meant to manipulate public perception or anything.


What is currently keeping the church from making the necessary repairs?

I'm ALL for the church helping and housing these folks...100%. I'm not even totally cool with the govt. stepping in like this but I understand WHY.

Ultimately, I don't see HOW dangerous the situation so I'm not sure I have a GREAT opinion

 

[probinson]

They don't have to sleep with strangers when in their tent. It doesn't seem like you have done any research at all on this subject.

I guess it depends on how big (or small) the tent in question is.

Still, if given the choice on a sub-zero night between a warm shelter on a cot or a mat in a building with running water or a tent in a field, I think the building will win with most people hands down. Not sure that requires any in-depth 'research'.

 

[probinson]

My apologies, I apparently was remembering something else. Having said that, these weren't minor issues that they needed to fix and apparently the church has done some work to fix the issues -- but they still had some rather major issues that weren't being resolved. Per various articles, the city found 18 serious violations and gave the Church roughly 45 days to fix them. Among these was a propane stove, complete with a portable propane tank, being used inside the church in a room without adequate ventilation. Another was an improperly installed gas dryer -- and in the last inspection (Jan 16) it actually had formed a gas leak. Either of those could have destroyed the church, and those in it, with a fire. From what I've found, there should be yet another inspection today and, as of the last inspection, I believe there were only 5 serious violations left (though the "city" may have solved one of the issues when they fixed the gas leak last week).

From what I'm reading of the issues, these aren't just minor things that needed to be fixed that the city has had issues with -- and apparently some of them (improperly installed dryer, propane tank being stored/used inside the building) were the city trying to make "cheap" upgrades to provide services for the homeless and creating safety issues for themselves and nearby buildings. It seems to me, with some of the issues that needed to be fixed, the city had good reason for wanting the shelter shut down until some of these fixes were accomplished.

It's true that there were (and still are) some serious issues, but it's not true that the city wants to stop this only until the issues are resolved .From the press release I posted above, the city said this:

Pastor Avell and Dad's Place were given notice to cease the violations of the zoning code, and the City offered to assist in placing any persons living or staying there. Pastor Avell, soon after receiving notice of the initial violations in November 2023, inquired as to whether he could get a conditional use permit to allow continued residential use on the first floor. He was informed administratively that residential use in a C-3 is prohibited, and cannot be approved as a conditional use.​

So even if the issues are fixed, that does not allow them to continue operating as they have been.

 

[probinson]

1) The thread title is salacious and imprecise. It wasn't shut down for housing homeless people. It was shut down for doing so in a space that was deemed to not be safe.

Um, it hasn't been shut down. Yet.

If it is shut down, it will not be because it's "not safe". It will be because the area they are housing the homeless is zoned for business and the city says that it cannot be approved as a conditional use otherwise.

2) It seems odd that, to solve this simple problem, the church could have EASILY invested a bit to make the required changes.

To solve this "simple" problem, the church would have had to purchase another facility, something I'm guessing they don't have the finances to do. The city alluded to this in their press release when they said:

Also, there are places in the City where Dad's Place likely could operate a safe homeless shelter that would be consistent with the zoning code. For example, the City also contacted individuals in charge of selling a facility in Bryan that, pending zoning approval, could be used by Dad's Place. This facility is in an area of the City that would permit individuals to sleep in the building.​

You should take 5 minutes and read the press release above to understand this issue before you comment further to prevent yourself from spreading any more misinformation.

I don't know why they didn't do that.

They did. 13 of the 18 violations cited have been addressed. It's not clear what is happening with the other 5 violations, but they have not been resolved to the city's satisfaction as of yet.

What is currently keeping the church from making the necessary repairs?

The church has been addressing the issues since they were first raised in November. Some of the fixes were quick, easy things. Some are presumably more involved.

I'm ALL for the church helping and housing these folks...100%. I'm not even totally cool with the govt. stepping in like this but I understand WHY.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, it would be in the best interest of everyone involved if they would stop with the criminal charges and lawsuits and sat down to work together.