Mission not an asset to neighborhood

Regarding the July 29 editorial 'Work together to address concerns” about Mission of Hope:

Mission of Hope shouldn't be on First Avenue. Recent changes don't show Mission of Hope is 'neighborhood-ready,” either. Missions don't improve neighborhoods and move elsewhere repeating their success. The building purchase affirms Mission of Hope's long-term goal as a welfare program. They provide free fish, but they don't teach fishing. Why do they want space for duplicate programs like food pantries (27 in Linn County) and clothing closets, when a centralized source (Salvation Army) would be more efficient?

That 25 percent of Mission clientele live in Mound View is unimportant. What's important is less than 10 percent of Mount View clients use Mission services. Can Mission of Hope justify helping a few (200 participants) at the expense of many (4,000 Mount View residents), when suitable commercial locations are available? Mount View homes lost $10,000 value (average) in the last four years.

Residents are frustrated. The police substation hasn't controlled First Avenue crime. Nuisance abatement and The Gazette say residents need to report problems. Why should neighbors fix a problem they didn't create?

My solution is simple: Anyone thinking Mission of Hope will be an asset to Mount View should purchase a homestead there. That demand will stop property value decline and allow residents wanting to move to do so.

Karen Guse

Cedar Rapids