The issues surrounding the proposed IFC Community House transitional facility are important ones. Unfortunately, Mark Peters' column of Oct. 31 ('Shelter siting process bypassed public') contains a number of inaccuracies, and does very little to contribute to a productive discussion.

The Town Council petitioned the Planning Board last spring to develop guidelines or standards for shelter applications. The Planning Board created a subcommittee (of which I am a member) to produce a draft for the full board to consider and recommend to council.

In June, the council specified that its petition was for guidelines only, and not binding standards or ordinances.

The subcommittee held six meetings. Ample time was allowed for public comment. The meetings were properly advertised. Mr. Peters attended every meeting and recorded the proceedings himself, which makes some of the inaccuracies doubly puzzling.

Mr. Peters is incorrect in stating that there would be nothing to prevent expansion of the proposed facility. Since the proposal is part of a Special Use Permit, any significant change in use or footprint would require amending the SUP, and thus a return trip to council, with ample opportunity for citizen input.

The column states: "The committee promised two public information sessions in its charter, but that promise was not kept." The subcommittee has no charter, only a mandate to provide recommendations to the Planning Board. The possibility of public information sessions was raised early in the process, when it was believed standards and ordinances were on the table. When the council clarified its petition, the subcommittee scaled its efforts back. In any case, if six open subcommittee meetings, at least two open Planning Board meetings, and multiple council meetings do not constitute a public process, then I do not know what does.

Mr. Peters' description of my discussion with Police Chief Brian Curran borders on blatant distortion. The subcommittee was exploring whether specific town departments might be required (rather than asked) to comment on shelter proposals. The subcommittee asked me to speak with Chief Curran to see what concerns, if any, he felt would be appropriate to include. The primary purpose of our discussion was not crime statistics, although we did discuss in general his perceptions of crime in the area around the current shelter and in the area of the proposed site. I took notes and reported back to the subcommittee.

Regarding interviewing the neighbors in Rainbow Heights, the subcommittee did not feel that this particular avenue would be productive for several reasons: (1) the interviews would produce primarily anecdotal and unverifiable information, (2) to be meaningful, the information would need a baseline for comparison, requiring more interviews, (3) the subcommittee members have neither the time nor the training to conduct objective interviews of nearby citizens.

The issue of overconcentration was discussed at length in subcommittee meetings. The subcommittee has made a specific recommendation in this regard that it feels is appropriate for the current situation.

Regarding the remaining allegations that the (sub)committee has "ignored" requests or been deliberately uninterested, I reject these categorically. Not accepting a thing is not the same as ignoring it. The committee rejected recommending the specific distance, size, and other requirements Mr. Peters mentions because it felt that they were either already covered by the SUP process (and thereby, subject to council review) or N.C. law, were not appropriate for the community at present, or that it had insufficient objective basis on which to make such recommendations.

Mr. Peters' attempts to manipulate the Planning Board into recommending something, anything, that will prevent the current proposal from being sited at its proposed location is at odds with the charge we were given. Our purpose is to provide the council with some general recommendations that will help them in their deliberations and review of any homeless shelter proposal. In the end, it is the council, not the subcommittee, and not the Planning Board that will make the final decision.