It’s the point I’m trying to make. The place wasn’t shut down arbitrarily for no reason, it was shut down (or rather prevented from becoming an impromptu homeless shelter) because it wasn’t safe.
If this had been allowed to carry on without fuss and then there was a fire that killed dozens of homeless people the headlines would have been blaring about how the city was responsible for those deaths. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
It also wasn’t safe for those homeless people to be sleeping outside in frigid temperatures. When weighing the options, would you rather have them sleep in a heated area that allegedly isn’t safe (though perfectly safe for congregants to congregate during normal hours) or sleep outside where they’ll most likely freeze to death? I don’t thinking people would have such an issue if there were a legitimate alternative available but there wasn’t.
There’s a big difference between sleeping in a place overnight and just standing around “congregating” there, from a fire safety standpoint.
This is not a one-off issue. The place has been repeatedly failing fire inspections. If the guy wants to use it as a homeless shelter then he needs to fix those issues.
Nobody is arguing that the building should remain unsafe. We’re pointing out that the alternative for those who stayed there would likely have been freezing to death sleeping outside. The place didn’t burn down obviously, so it was definitely the right call to have them sleep in the church during the cold snap.
They lucked out this time. That’s a lousy basis on which to judge building codes. Every building that burned down and killed dozens in the process spent many days not burning down first.
It’s the point I’m trying to make. The place wasn’t shut down arbitrarily for no reason, it was shut down (or rather prevented from becoming an impromptu homeless shelter) because it wasn’t safe.
If this had been allowed to carry on without fuss and then there was a fire that killed dozens of homeless people the headlines would have been blaring about how the city was responsible for those deaths. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
It also wasn’t safe for those homeless people to be sleeping outside in frigid temperatures. When weighing the options, would you rather have them sleep in a heated area that allegedly isn’t safe (though perfectly safe for congregants to congregate during normal hours) or sleep outside where they’ll most likely freeze to death? I don’t thinking people would have such an issue if there were a legitimate alternative available but there wasn’t.
There’s a big difference between sleeping in a place overnight and just standing around “congregating” there, from a fire safety standpoint.
This is not a one-off issue. The place has been repeatedly failing fire inspections. If the guy wants to use it as a homeless shelter then he needs to fix those issues.
Nobody is arguing that the building should remain unsafe. We’re pointing out that the alternative for those who stayed there would likely have been freezing to death sleeping outside. The place didn’t burn down obviously, so it was definitely the right call to have them sleep in the church during the cold snap.
They lucked out this time. That’s a lousy basis on which to judge building codes. Every building that burned down and killed dozens in the process spent many days not burning down first.