Eventually, De Jong said that the input period could be extended, but that OrgCode would need more money. This discussion led directly into questions about OrgCode’s funding. De Jong said that his source of funding was the Weinberg Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that controls the flow of millions of dollars within Baltimore. He was quickly corrected by someone in the front row who said that the Journey Home Fund was the source of money. Asked, “who are your constituents? I mean, who is your document actually for?” De Jong answered that it was for those who would be deciding how to distribute funding. The implication seemed to be that because the plan was privately funded its organizers would ultimately be accountable to the public.

After a number of critical questions had been asked, De Jong stopped responding directly.

Audience members suggested that OrgCode, which does consulting work around homelessness in many cities in the USA and in Canada, had produced a generic plan without seriously investigating Baltimore. An official from Baltimore’s Housing Authority criticized De Jong for not using the correct name for his agency.

Turt, a homeless man, challenged those present to go to the streets and try being homeless themselves. He said that people in suits had been making promises about homelessness for decades, with not enough action taken. He said that the report was nothing new—just old material dressed up with bigger words.

Tony Simmons, with Word on the Street and the Faces of Homelessness Speakers’ Bureau, had harsh words about policies intended to house the “most vulnerable” homeless people. De Jong had said one of the plan’s “benchmarks” was annual housing for the 50 most vulnerable homeless people with an 80% success rate. Simmons argued that all homeless people were vulnerable, joining a chorus of voices who argue that triaging the homeless is not acceptable.

Bonnie Lane, also with WOTS, questioned the entire assembly about why the I-83 homeless encampment—just around the corner from the meeting—was being targeted for eviction. No one responded to Lane’s question.

For more on the LAG meeting listen to this report [archived version] from WYPR’s Rose Marie Madden.

Stay tuned for more updates on the Journey Home and on Camp 83. Get breaking

news from W ord on the Street through @WOTSBMORE on Twitter.

Original Comments:

Paul Behler February 16, 2013 at 3:31 pm · · Reply →

As much of the statements made in this article are based on conjecture, at best; The reality is that approximately 90+% of the people in attendance agreed with Orgcode and were appalled that small minded and small agenda people did not see the big picture. All that commented negatively at the meeting WERE In The Group that were Consulted about the re-write. And, the re-write was only about how for B’more to think about a new direction of how to think about themselves re-writing the Plan. 90+% got it thowe that bitched did not!!!!

141eastpratt February 18, 2013 at 2:09 pm · · Reply →

Thanks for your comment Paul. We tried to report as accurately as possible on what happened at the meeting, particularly during the Q&A. It’s hard to know what silent members of the audience were thinking, particularly since many left during the Q&A and immediately after. I would note that Ms. Fasanelli acknowledged being consulted about the new plan, but said her advice was not heeded. We don’t yet know what that advice was.

[Update, November 2013: Based on an interview with newly appointed Journey Home Director Adrienne Breidenstine, Bonnie Lane reported that OrgCode’s report will not replace the original Journey Home plan as official policy.]