Submitted by Chris, Feb 16, 2007 22:26

If it's a question of legality, doesn't the organization have an obligation to provide housing for working women of moderate means/income? That was the original donor's intent. To do otherwise potentially puts them in violation of the law, especially if the gift came through a testamentary gift. If the women presently living in the building are no longer working, but retired, then The Salvation Army has been extremely compassionate by keeping these older ladies as tenants. If there isn't enough money in the original fund/trust to run or maintain the property, then the organization is forced to take money from other parts of their programs and operations in order to pay for a program that no longer serves its original intent. This means those in the much less affluent areas of the city who are homeless, without food, in need of utility assistance or some other help aren't being helped because The Salvation Army has been taking care of some older women who have lived in this place well beyond the original intent of the program.

As for the eviction, I'm sure they will do well to help these women find new homes with the most reasonable rents possible. Regardless, The Salvation Army is not obligated to provide senior citizens with an apartment in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in the world.

About them making $100 million or more from the sale of the property, there is no law that would prevent the charity from making a lot of money from the sale. It is not a violation of their non-profit status to have a huge income from a sale like this. They just have to use the proceeds for their charitable work. In this case it would probably involve providing housing for working women of modest means and income in another part of the city.

It seems to me, these politicians are jockeying for some type of public attention, but they are doing it in the wrong manner. It makes me wonder how many of them are going to be up for election during the next go around. While helping the residents in and of itself is a noble thing, filing a law suit is not the way to approach this. Instead, they should try to work with the tenants and The Salvation Army to see how they can best honor the intentions of the original donor who gave the money for the Parkside Evangline and the Ten-Eyck Troughton residences. The lawsuit will just cost the organization more money that should be going to their charitable work. If these politicians really care about helping people, they will use their political brawn and influence to bring about resolution without threats and lawsuits that would hurt all of those in need who seek it from this fine organization.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.