votenow: I've yet to meet anyone, including myself, who isn't "passionate in providing for the homeless". BUT....I think we also can agree that any responsible program and/or facility that serves those in need or at-risk MUST be required to obey the same laws, codes, zoning, city/state/federal regulations, and so forth that ANYONE else does. Those laws exist for the public well-being. Then what's the problem? CHURCHES (and even all the new so-called ministries that have no buildings) ARE EXEMPT from ANY laws by the vague language of RLUIPA. CHECK IT OUT! (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) Any person running for city council who doesn't know about the chaos this federal act has caused nationwide (since 2000) should sit down and talk with our city attorney. Some churches do "love our neighbors as ourselves" while far too many others are using this Act without regard for those harmed in the process.

Hi sixdegrees...Like I said, just food for thought. I definitely believe someone can "change". But that would also be of concern to me...having something serious like that in one's past.

So, curiousinvestigator, a city council member can't have any possibility of changing in a period of nearly ten years to improve his or her life?

Tom McDonald believes passionately in providing for the homeless. He's spent most of his life doing charitable work. He deserves everyone's support.

Only people adjacent to the shelters are qualified to have opinions on them? That seems a little far fetched. Perhaps only those adjacent to City Hall are qualified to vote in the upcoming election. To suggest that other residents' opinions don't matter because of living only a couple blocks away is incorrect. Maybe adjacent residents know more of the adverse effects of the shelters (dini79 seems to have no complaints), but we can't turn a blind eye to the positive effects. They have given homeless men with no other options a place to stay and food to eat. They take people off the streets. The homeless people are not going away. GIFTS has at least given them an option, and has brought the issue of homelessness into the public eye. A permanent shelter would be great, but that would likely have adjacent residents, too, if it's put in an accessible area for Janesville's homeless. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to be your main objection. GIFTS is a good way to help those in need, and it is a better option than leaving men on the street in the frigid cold. If you have a better option right now, I'm sure we'd all be glad hear it, but criticism without offering suggestions for improvement isn't very helpful. Let's hope the City Council candidates campaign on more than just complaints (as most are), and their supporters can as well.

Has anyone checked into these candidates conviction history on things, such as battery, disorderly conduct, etc.
Do they have to disclose that on an application in order to be able to run for city council?
I have a feeling there's at least 1 of them that has not disclosed their "history". Just some food for thought.
I know I personally would not care to have someone on city council that was cited for those offenses.

Correct, bucksandy34. Only those who live adjacent to these churches are qualified to speak about the REAL adverse affects. "Unsupported opinions" do come from anyone else - even the volunteers who can do their good deeds and then LEAVE to the comfort and quiet of their own homes even 1 block away. Institutions should not be loved and cared for over the people adversely affected by them, nor over those served by them as demonstrated by the lack of handicapped accessibility at some of the shelters. "GOOGLE" the chaos caused by RLUIPA to residential neighborhoods nationwide which is becoming a growing phenomenon. The shame of too many "faith-based" charities is that the definition of "neighbors" is so quickly "qualified" allowing naive supporters to dismiss and ignore those good Janesville people who, as property owners, TRULY are caring, contributing, and extremely patient neighbors. Demonizing property owners who speak the truth only reflects badly on the programs and institutions who aren't listening nor paying attention. Let's hope the new Council members who are elected will not only have loud voices for all citizens but also open ears and minds for everyone.

I don't know what qualifies as LIVING by any of the rotating church homeless shelters, but Mr. McDonald lives about a half mile away from, and attends, one of the churches. He works downtown by others. I was lucky enough to volunteer on an overnight shift at the traveling shelter on the same night as Tom. Volunteering there was a true eye-opener and a great experience, and I feel like the shelter is really helping out the community. If you haven't spent time volunteering at one of these churches, I would encourage it. I would certainly hope you spend time there before accusing it as siphoning money and writing it off as a bad idea. If you have volunteered at the shelter, thanks for helping, but if not, thanks but no thanks for this unsupported "opinion".

Here's a shocker for you, proartist: Most of "these guys" (sex offenders, etc.) are not homeless. They live in various homes across the city. I've seen a house full of 'em -- they live next to my child's friends -- and you know, they look like pretty ordinary working folks to me. So your criterion ("homeless") falls way short. You'd have to hit a lot of "ifs' to get to some crazed guy attacking your kid because he's desperate enough to be at a homeless shelter. Sounds like right-wing bunk.
Thank heaven somebody's willing to reach out to homeless people with no other options in wind chills routinely hitting -35F this winter. And I live two blocks away from one of the churches in question. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in a gated community. Meanwhile, to Mr. McDonald and Mr. Bishop and Ms. O'Brien, to name three, kudos for not being afraid to address social issues in their statements.

I doubt Tom McDonald LIVES by any of the rotating church homeless shelters he supports given, "Any open wants or warrants, or recorded sex-offender status will prevent an applicant from taking advantage of this service." Where does he think these guys go once they've been brought into a neighborhood and then are "rejected" amid those adjacent homes and schools???? Thanks but no thanks for this new "revitalization" given some of the GIFTS churches (some involved don't even have buildings!) are downtown. The homeless do desperately need shelter but an unlicensed, unregulated, volunteer program that only siphons funds that might otherwise go into professional and responsible shelters is NOT the way to provide safe and healthy shelters for anyone.

Tom McDonald is by far the most competent candidate. His stance on the sidewalks and downtown revitalization plan are superb. Janesville will be a better place with Tom on the council.