Dream of children's home slowly fades

In an area with the wealth of the Twin Cities, this is a tragedy. The number of homeless people and abused children continues to grow all the while the Mercedes and BMW's in the area continue to cruise. Giving abused kids to other family members or relatives has been shown recently to not be the best scenario. There are very few people willing to show the compassion that Mary Jo Copeland shares on a daily basis. Most people would rather look the other way like the problem just doesn't exist. If you think people visiting the Twin Cities don't notice the homeless gathered under the overpasses and on street corners with signs, you are mistaken. There are a number of wealthy corporations and donors who could have made this Childrens home a reality without missing a beat in their portfolios and shown the Twin Cities to be the warm spot in the Midwest. Sadly the Copelands stand alone.

The cities of Brooklyn Park and Chaska rejected their proposal outright, and the project put black and American Indian leaders especially on edge.
The Copelands have said they recently lost a $5 million gift from Best Buy founder Richard Schulze after failing to match it.
Why did they fail to match it??????
Sure looks like they just want tax write off!!!
Just more welfare!!!

Sue wrote:

The cities of Brooklyn Park and Chaska rejected their proposal outright, and the project put black and American Indian leaders especially on edge.
The Copelands have said they recently lost a $5 million gift from Best Buy founder Richard Schulze after failing to match it.
Why did they fail to match it??????
Sure looks like they just want tax write off!!!
Just more welfare!!!

Sorry, what tax writeoff? If they lost the grant there is no writeoff.

Their land is tax-exempt. Tax the Copelands and then start taxing the churches!

This children's shelter could have addressed a number of problems. It's sad that it never came to light.

I've been one of the homeless youth receiving services from places like Sharing and Caring hands. The problem with youth is that they don't fit in as well in an adult shelter and this can lead to problems.(Such as gang recruitment by adults staying at the shelter who are less than honest about keeping clean.)

While I feel for the children who may have benefited from the home, I am pleased to hear the neighbor won't be assessed the $100K fee from the City of Eagan. A story ran a couple years back that because of the location for the home, the city / county would need to put in sewer and other services - the poor guy who lives there now and has for a number of years was going to have to pay simply because of where he lived! Mary's response to her future neighbor having to pay $100K? "He got that land for a song anyways".

Congrats to the homeowner.

Buttomfly wrote:

In an area with the wealth of the Twin Cities, this is a tragedy. The number of homeless people and abused children continues to grow all the while the Mercedes and BMW's in the area continue to cruise. Giving abused kids to other family members or relatives has been shown recently to not be the best scenario. There are very few people willing to show the compassion that Mary Jo Copeland shares on a daily basis. Most people would rather look the other way like the problem just doesn't exist. If you think people visiting the Twin Cities don't notice the homeless gathered under the overpasses and on street corners with signs, you are mistaken. There are a number of wealthy corporations and donors who could have made this Childrens home a reality without missing a beat in their portfolios and shown the Twin Cities to be the warm spot in the Midwest. Sadly the Copelands stand alone.

I agree with what you have to say.
Just an observation: Some areas that appear to have money are not as generous as one would believe - perhaps these areas are more "wannabe's" than "the Haves"

bobbyjohn wrote:

While I feel for the children who may have benefited from the home, I am pleased to hear the neighbor won't be assessed the $100K fee from the City of Eagan. A story ran a couple years back that because of the location for the home, the city / county would need to put in sewer and other services - the poor guy who lives there now and has for a number of years was going to have to pay simply because of where he lived! Mary's response to her future neighbor having to pay $100K? "He got that land for a song anyways".
Congrats to the homeowner.

While I feel that Mary's response was rather callous, If you want to live in the kingdom of "lookit what I got" eventually you will have to pay for the privilege to live there. Lucky guy, most of us will never be able to claim we lived in the area once.(this is sarcasm)

P.S. I have lived in Eagan, but, moved because it was a little pretentious for me. Too each their own.

I don't know this Copeland person, and I'm sure she's a nice lady, but she seems to go against the grain and wants to do things her way instead of relying on already well-established government programs to run these things. Government programs are up to date on the latest psychological findings and know what's best for the youth. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the idea that this group has the audacity to think they have some magic forula to do it better than professional governmental services. Do we even need these type of private charities in today's world? The main problem is Republicans who want to defund social services already in place. We should let the professionals in government handle these issues, not private groups, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

OK_ILL_SAY_IT wrote:

P.S. I have lived in Eagan, but, moved because it was a little pretentious for me. Too each their own.

Take a drive by the home I am referring too. It is far from pretentious - it is a nice, well kept house that was built well over 30 years ago. Whatever type McMansion you are picturing in your mind, this house could fit inside the garage.

Assumptions are dangerous and most often incorrect.

Mrs R wrote:

I don't know this Copeland person, and I'm sure she's a nice lady, but she seems to go against the grain and wants to do things her way instead of relying on already well-established government programs to run these things. Government programs are up to date on the latest psychological findings and know what's best for the youth. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the idea that this group has the audacity to think they have some magic forula to do it better than professional governmental services. Do we even need these type of private charities in today's world? The main problem is Republicans who want to defund social services already in place. We should let the professionals in government handle these issues, not private groups, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

In keeping with your off-kilter views of victimhood, Mrs. R, why would we want to keep funding professional gov't services in lieu of assisting people who can use a significantly higher percentage of dollars collected expressly for the aims they suggest?

Or are you simply trying to effect a self-fulfilling prophecy by creating as many avenues to the creation of more victims?

Mrs R wrote:

I don't know this Copeland person, and I'm sure she's a nice lady, but she seems to go against the grain and wants to do things her way instead of relying on already well-established government programs to run these things. Government programs are up to date on the latest psychological findings and know what's best for the youth. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the idea that this group has the audacity to think they have some magic forula to do it better than professional governmental services. Do we even need these type of private charities in today's world? The main problem is Republicans who want to defund social services already in place. We should let the professionals in government handle these issues, not private groups, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

If the government programs (i.e. foster care) were so great, we wouldn't be hearing about all the problems with them. Abused children, kids ending up dead, kids ending up missing for MONTHS, kids getting discharged at 18 with no real education or stability, etc etc. Sadly, there are quite a few foster parents and relatives that take the children because they are a garunteed paycheck every month, with free dental and medical benifits. And not all the "foster subsidy" goes to the kids or to care for them either.(there are a lot of really good foster parents out there though, but I think the bad outweighs the good)

dems energy plan strikes again-

restrict/block/litigate

Buttomfly wrote:

In an area with the wealth of the Twin Cities, this is a tragedy. The number of homeless people and abused children continues to grow all the while the Mercedes and BMW's in the area continue to cruise. Giving abused kids to other family members or relatives has been shown recently to not be the best scenario. There are very few people willing to show the compassion that Mary Jo Copeland shares on a daily basis. Most people would rather look the other way like the problem just doesn't exist. If you think people visiting the Twin Cities don't notice the homeless gathered under the overpasses and on street corners with signs, you are mistaken. There are a number of wealthy corporations and donors who could have made this Childrens home a reality without missing a beat in their portfolios and shown the Twin Cities to be the warm spot in the Midwest. Sadly the Copelands stand alone.

People in the Twin Cities overall aren't as progressive or generous with their time/money as they are in Madison. I've lived both places and you can feel the difference almost immediately.

I've heard tales (and admittedly, that's all they are) that Mary Jo Copeland is not always the easiest person to work with. I wonder if there is any truth to this, and if so, if it might have contributed to the failure of the project to raise the needed funds.

Oh for the love of God enough already. Mary Copeland is a hard headed bring all the other than whites to Minnesota. I'm sick of all of it. Why not help white people?

Sick of it all wrote:

Oh for the love of God enough already. Mary Copeland is a hard headed bring all the other than whites to Minnesota. I'm sick of all of it. Why not help white people?

What is with the racist comments? Holy crap! I don't know her personally, but does she have a "no white people" policy? I'm pretty sure most charities help people of all colors.

Mrs R wrote:

I don't know this Copeland person, and I'm sure she's a nice lady, but she seems to go against the grain and wants to do things her way instead of relying on already well-established government programs to run these things. Government programs are up to date on the latest psychological findings and know what's best for the youth. Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the idea that this group has the audacity to think they have some magic forula to do it better than professional governmental services. Do we even need these type of private charities in today's world? The main problem is Republicans who want to defund social services already in place. We should let the professionals in government handle these issues, not private groups, no matter how well intentioned they may be.

You are a cute lil' troll aren't you.

Professional government services? Are we to assume there are amateur government services? Minor league government services? Semi professional government services? Is there a Government Hall of Fame? Are their stats, like lead the league in pork barrel projects or MVD (most valuable democrat) or platitudes per speech.

Speaking of defund, is that a word and don't you owe me money because of failed social programs? See Valley Fair Beating.

Ell wrote:

I've heard tales (and admittedly, that's all they are) that Mary Jo Copeland is not always the easiest person to work with. I wonder if there is any truth to this, and if so, if it might have contributed to the failure of the project to raise the needed funds.

I've heard the same thing about here. There was an interesting story about her a few years ago in the Twin Cities Reader saying essentially the same thing.