I see only good in this effort. I really don't understand why commenters are coming down so hard on these kids. It's healthy, it's proactive, its community driven, it's fun, it's raising good litttle public citizens.

Where's the harm?

Ownership is a uniquely American obsession? Please.

They are theoretically wonderful, putting somebody's money where their mouths are, and it's cheap. Go for it. Just keep off my lawn.

I just wonder what 100,000 could do for an existing gay youth space, if these people obtain it and use it to leverage their way into leadership roles, rather than complain that the current leadership is of adults? How much better the money spent to not reinvent the parts of the wheel that work well at Vera or Lambert, but rather dangle that money to incentivize more control over gay youth space? I am just saying, sometimes money is a lube as well as a strap-on. or something like that...

Ahem. Stick a flag IN it?

Maybe they should do some non-abusive panhandling to raise the money.

@ 6) Not ironic. Savage said we should cover the event and I sent Erika to it, with the questions we'd been asking. We also encouraged her to explain her opinion--her supportive opinion.

"we're still claiming space"?

Dear QYS —

Jane Jacobs once mused how new ideas need old buildings, not new ones. There is strong support for that.

Rather than slapping down the cost of building something from the ground up, think frugally, find a neglected place that could stand another chance at life, use sweat equity to renovate the place on the cheap using recycled materials from the nearest re-use centre, and maintain it affordably. Sweat equity is nothing more than putting your own physical investment into the effort, like painting, re-finishing, even construction of walls.

The advantages are many: a tremendous amount of money saved as well as a tremendous sense of ownership over that space. It's a more sustainable approach to using what already exists (saving on the impact of raw materials necessary to build from the ground up). It will save a lot of money that would be spent on civil engineers, architects, and other professionals who make their money in development and whose fees would devour 100K before the foundation is poured. And then there's the zoning amendments to file and so on.

But the biggest reason? With sweat equity, it really is yours. It really is a re-claiming of space that was otherwise under neglect. Done in the right place, a re-vitalized space can re-vitalize an entire neighbourhood. You can even organize the structure as a member-owned and -operated co-operative.

You don't need 100K to do this. You don't even need 10K. You could probably manage most of the renovation for half that. Rather than commit to buy or take out a mortgage (problematic in of itself, especially with limited lending history), find an "elder" queer who owns the potential property and arrange for a long-term lease that would be win-win for both parties: QYS get the space, and the landlord knows that she or he is helping effect good.

The point is you need to think creatively and frugally. Writing a grant might make for tingly feelings, but it helps to have something already in place before a trust or benefactor will grant said money.

This is called offering constructive advice. I'm in the mood to be nice. Don't take it for granted.

I'm generally supportive of this group and what they're trying to do... That said, I'm curious about the demographics of these youth.

I see the hands of American Friends Service Committee and a couple of other groups here, and I wonder if this isn't the same old complaints from middle class white teens who don't want to be around "urban" youth or homeless "street kids" and the like. That would certainly explain why they don't want to go near Lambert House.

Like I said, they're pushing a good concept. And there's clearly a need. There's just something... odd... here.

Maybe you nailed it Mickymse. Are these youth uncomfortable around the kids from Lambert House, Peace for the Streets, and Youth Care? Good question.

I still contend we need queer space for everyone. Just because we are over 21 doesn't mean we only hang at bars and clubs. We need places to meet with our organizations, too.

There is plenty of space on Capitol Hill that will be available for a new LGBT Center. I say bid for the property above the future transit station on Broadway. A huge space where there is room for all! We can have a room just for queer youth so they don't have to mix us with us oldies. Above it all, we can have the gay senior housing that was promised when the Pike Street LGBT Center was funded and opened years ago.

I really am for the youth. However, focusing only on them diverts money and resources from a community that needs to come together.

loved the article! well done.

QYSers —

Might you for a change just be blunt and straightforward by saying wtf is up with Lambert House being a fail so that we're all on the same page? There's no reason to dance around that obstacle.

We're amongst adults here, you know. This includes you all, regardless your age (since being spoken to like children is denigrating when you're trying to garner mature respect, right?).

Much obliged!

"Overtime, after thoughtful consideration and via formal partnership with a licensed mental health provider, Three Wings aims to offer a range of holistic services on sliding fee scale"

It's right in the document.