A low turnout of neighbors objecting to the proposed Union Street facility convinces the development board the project is good for the community.
By ROBERT FARLEY
Published December 17, 2003
CLEARWATER - While the neighborhood was divided over a planned 16-bed shelter for teens in crisis on Union Street, the city's Community Development Board was not.
On Tuesday, the city board unanimously gave the go-ahead for Family Resources, a private nonprofit social service organization, to build its shelter and counseling center at 1615 Union St. The location is surrounded on three sides by homes, and on the other by the Union Street United Methodist Church.
Although petitions submitted to the city suggested widespread opposition, only a handful of residents came to Tuesday's meeting to speak against it.
Those who did cited fears about troubled teens wandering their neighborhood, or that it would hurt neighborhood property values.
"We presently enjoy a lifestyle free of crime and noise," said John McTaggart, president of the Union Park Homeowners' Association, a 55-and-older community of 142 homes across the street from the proposed facility. "It appears the lifestyle we've enjoyed would now come to an abrupt end."
"A cloud of fear spread through the park" when residents heard about the plan, McTaggart said.
Despite assurances from Family Resources that the youths staying at the shelter are not criminals, McTaggart said it would worry some elderly residents sick. Now they will have to worry about late night knocks on the door; or they will be afraid to take a walk at night, he said.
Those fears are unfounded, said Pat Gerard, vice president of programs for Family Resources, which would use federal grants to pay for most of this project. The children are under 24-hour supervision.
"They do not wander the streets at night," Gerard said. "They are always under the watchful eye of our staff."
The youths - boys and girls ages 10 to 17 - are not criminals, she said. Often, they are children who have been abused or neglected. Many of them are runaways. Some are youths having problems dealing with new stepparents.
The Family Resources shelter, which currently operates out of an old converted home at 1622 Turner St., is designed to act as a preventive measure to keep youth out of the juvenile justice or foster care systems. Most youths are returned to their homes after eight days.
The Union Street facility would replace the 12-bed facility on Turner Street run by Family Resources since the early 1970s. The agency also plans to move its family counseling center from its leased space on East Bay Drive in Largo to the new $1.3-million facility on Union Street.
The Union Street site is the former home of the British Academy, a private school abandoned several years ago. Family Resources plans to demolish the old school building.
Daniel Edgar, who is a neighbor of the shelter on Turner Street, said it has never been a problem in the neighborhood. "Invisible," is the best way to describe it, he said.
"You really couldn't ask for better neighbors, honestly," he said.
The Family Resources plan also got several endorsements from neighbors around Union Street.
James Morgan, a neighbor and pastor of the Union Street United Methodist Church next door, said the abandoned school is an eyesore in the neighborhood. It repeatedly has been broken into and set on fire. The Family Resources shelter would be a big improvement, he said.
"I think there's a real need for the facility," he said. "These are not criminals. These are kids who need some help."
Sgt. Stephen Slaughter, who's in charge of Largo police's youth services division, called Family Resources "our No. 1 ally in helping youth."
It allows police to get professional intervention for incorrigible youths, he said, to prevent those youths from turning into criminals.
That kind of endorsement carries a lot of weight, Community Development Board member Ed Hooper said.
"The part that compelled me is that this is not a facility for juvenile delinquents," he said.
Hooper also noted there were only several residents who spoke in opposition to the project.
"I was kind of surprised that only three or four people came to speak in objection," Hooper said. "It's a sign that wasn't such a widespread issue."
