This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2016, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

It is good to hear that some members of the Salt Lake City Council want to get add their two cents worth to the decisions that are about to be made on how — and, most importantly, where — to step up to the problem of homelessness in our community.

Assuming, of course, that more involvement from the council, or anyone else, does not lead to a stalemate that leads to nothing getting better.

This is the serious dilemma facing Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski, Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams and the various committees, task forces and interested persons who have pledged to face this problem head on.

Without a lot of public buy-in, generally and in whatever neighborhoods are chosen for new facilities serving the homeless, nothing will get done. But, without some serious leadership hearing, guiding and answering the public input, the threat of a NIMBY (not in my back yard) wave threatens to stop any specific plan in its tracks.

There isn't anyone out there who wants to pick up the homeless shelter operated by The Road Home at 200 South and Rio Grande and set it down somewhere else.

Whether they are motivated by the desire to help their fellow human beings or by their vision of redeveloping what they see as the next trendy neighborhood in town — the two ideas are not at all in conflict — all concerned realize that the disturbing sight of lost souls, fights and drug deals will not be welcome anywhere.

Which can mean a unified drive, by government, business and non-profits, to not merely move the shelter but to seize the chance to rethink the way services to the homeless are provided.

Biskupski and her allies have promised a fully open process to not only select sites for new, smaller, more specialized homeless services facilities, but also, before that, to develop a set of criteria for what should go where. At the same time, members of the City Council worry that they haven't been sufficiently consulted in the process up to now.

That concern is good news, if it means that council members are willing to share the heat, and make the case, for whatever decisions get made. It could be bad news, though, if it turns into parochial defense of any particular neighborhood.

The path to a much-needed new way of helping the homeless — by meeting them where they are, approaching each of them as a unique case and solving their individual problems — will be long, complicated, expensive and controversial. Many people will have to get out and pull.

Getting them to pull in the same direction may be the hard part.