Arc rivals

In Union Terrace, concerned residents have instigated a petition and a leaflet claims a homeless centre in the area could put women, children and homeowners at risk.

Today, petition organiser Rob Gray explains his fears, as the Reverend Paul Wordsworth, the chairman of Arc Light, explains why residents are misguided.

We are not NIMBYs

Rob Gray is the organiser of a petition against the Arc Light centre being housed in Union Terrace. He explains whyresidents in the area are concerned.

THIS is one of the most important social issues I have seen since I came to York more than 30 years ago. It is a venture which depends upon support.

The very nature of this city is that it is small. In a large city you can find a site where everyone can live in peace. You can't in York. Someone is going to suffer.

In the council's executive report of March 21, it details essential criteria which should be met for the centre to be viable such as security for guests and neighbours.

It also looks at desirable criteria such as the development being positively supported by the local community and details supplementary themes including concerns about locating the centre close to schools, about having too many schemes for homeless people in the same area and that it should not be located in a densely populated residential area.

This scheme in Union Terrace does not meet those criteria. It would be in close proximity to old people's residences in Lord Mayors Walk and Union Terrace.

It would also be within a mile of three primary schools, and also two residential secondary schools (Bootham and St Peter's). There is also a crche at York St John's College.

The area surrounding the car park has probably the greatest concentration of single/multiple unit occupation in the whole of York.

In the environment of the proposed site there are already provisions for rough sleepers and the homeless at the Salvation Army, a drop in centre for substance users at Union Terrace and a drop in centre for people with mental health issues in Clarence Street.

Far from integrating the clients of the Arc Light centre into the community this is surely a case of clustering all of York's problems in one area.

This site does not meet the criteria. We have been criticised and accused of calling Arc Light's occupants "paedophiles". We are not saying that at all. We are using the council's own criteria.

We are expressing the concerns of business. The car park at Union Terrace provides vital footfall for shops on Clarence Street and Gillygate. This centre will build on that car park and has the potential for reducing their business.

It is also an overspill from the York District Hospital car park and as such is used extensively by visitors and patients attending clinics and so on. To reduce the number of spaces would have a great impact on a wider community.

We think any young women, or older people - who are by their nature vulnerable - would be concerned by any new 40 bedroom building for single people. It has nothing to do with the fact they are Arc Light residents.

It would be in close proximity to hospital staff and student nurses accommodation, often single female, often alone.

This process has been pushed through in just eight weeks. There has been no leafleting and no debate. This is a great concern.

The criteria says the centre should be positively supported in the local community. Clearly, given the petition we have amassed within a very short space of time proves there is opposition to this development.

We counter the NIMBY argument. We are not NIMBYs. We simply feel if they wanted to choose a more inappropriate site, they could not have found one.

Bring out the truth

The Rev Paul Wordsworth, chairman of Arc Light, explains why "stereotypes" of the charity's guests are wide of the mark

The site for Arc Light's new centre is down to four possible locations.

Opponents suggest that wherever is chosen, local residents will suffer the consequences.

The suffering is outlined by those petitioning against Union Terrace car park.

Increased petty crime, increased antisocial behaviour, and less security for houses, shops, businesses and car parks are three elements, if the centre is located there. This is due to "the very nature of the users of the proposed centre," as their leaflet explains.

The inference is clear - homeless people are antisocial petty criminals. That stereotypes a whole group of people, in order to create a climate of fear and insecurity among local residents.

Logically, it should follow that Leeman Road and St Peter's Quarter are hot spots for petty crime and antisocial behaviour, since Arc Light is currently sited there. Police statistics simply do not bear that out. The fact that the car park, not 20 metres from Arc Light's front door, is one of the safest parks in the city should not go unnoticed.

What factual evidence is there that Arc Light brings suffering to a local community by its mere presence? We have three bases, one at Piccadilly, one in Heworth, and one in Leeman Road. In six years of operation in the city, none whatsoever.

Looking at the criteria for the location, the general public listed their concern about Arc Light being placed very close to schools. The Union Terrace opponents cite three primary schools within a mile of the proposed site, the crche at York St John, Bootham and St Peter's School. Given that Arc Light needs to relocate in the city centre, how many sites are not within one mile of a school? The answer is probably none.

Why do Arc Light residents pose some risk to children? We do not accommodate those on the Sex offenders register. We do not propose to do so. During the six years of our existence, we have had not one incident involving our guests and assault or abuse of children. St Barnabas School in nearby Jubilee Terrace has not reported any incidents involving pupils being intimidated by Arc Light residents.

The students, from St Peter's School, who volunteer at Arc Light are hardly likely to join in the "let's be afraid, let's be very afraid of homeless people." Our opponents needlessly spread fear among local people. It is based on no factual evidence.

Whoever is counted as vulnerable in the local community, the elderly, or young, single females, are portrayed as being under threat from homeless people. The aim is to unsettle and unnerve potential "victims", who presumably become more willing to sign petitions.

The facts are clear. A homeless person is 22 times more likely to suffer assault or physical attack than other members of the population.

The majority of attacks upon homeless people are made by young males with residential addresses. Many of the assaults go unreported.

On average, we spend £600 a year replacing glass broken by passers by, who throw bricks and paving stones through Arc Light's hostel windows. In terms of statistics, it is homeless people who are among the most vulnerable in society. What kind of spin is it that seeks to turn the victim into the perpetrator? It is called propaganda.

There is time for much more discussion and debate. Bring out the truth, and let justice be done. If the right site is chosen, then fears will have proved groundless.

Updated: 09:52 Monday, March 27, 2006