Grateful Hearts president refutes misconduct claim from Jan. 25 letter
Grateful Hearts president refutes misconduct claim from Jan. 25 letter
Dear Editor,
Having read the editorial written regarding Grateful Hearts and Cottonwood Church a few weeks back, my first response was to ignore it, as I was aware of the truth behind the situation and felt it unnecessary to defend the actions of our organization.
Upon further reflection, however, I felt it best to address some of the erroneous statements as well as clear the name of Cottonwood Church in this situation, as blame was placed on them for something they had no part in.
Rather than trying to understand the special circumstances that our staff faced that day, we were labeled as lacking compassion and this opinion was subsequently published in the newspaper.
The young man opened his letter by mentioning the “Hypocrisy” he believed to be at Cottonwood church as a result of his experience that day. He goes on to mention that he was at Grateful Hearts “Cottonwood’s subsidiary Thrift Store.”
Firstly, it should be noted that Grateful Hearts is NOT a subsidiary of Cottonwood in any way, shape or form, but rather a separate 501 c 3 Welfare corporation. We are blessed to receive some financial support as well as some volunteers from Cottonwood, but we have been a Community Resource Center for those in need since 1998, and an independent corporation since the year 2001. We are not owned by any outside church or organization of any kind.
We are truly sorry and disappointed that this was the method that this obviously caring young man used to try and make his point heard. I believe it would have been helpful for him to engage in a conversation with us directly in the hopes of possibly gaining a better understanding of who Grateful Hearts is, what we do, and our heart towards those who are hurting and struggling to make ends meet. (This includes, but is not limited to those with mental health Issues.) Better yet, we invite him to come volunteer with us so that he can see first hand how we operate!
For the past 18 years I can assure you that it has never been our practice to offer preferential treatment according to anyone’s social standing, or for what they could give us, or even according to how well they have treated us. We expect nothing from our clients except that they respect our procedures and conduct themselves in a civil manner while on our premises. We serve thousands of people monthly and we have to conduct our services in an orderly manner. We feel a calling and responsibility to continue to extend mercy and show kindness to everyone, We do our very best to meet the needs of all people who come to our doors looking for help while experiencing times of hardship.
The situation referred to in the editorial was regarding a dear client of ours who we have been caring for on a weekly basis for over a year now. We have been providing her with food, clothing, hygiene products and household necessities. She is one (among several) of our clients with mental health issues and we consider it an honor and privilege to serve them all.
Unfortunately, on the day this young man was present, we were having continual (and very serious) problems with this particular client regarding merchandise in our store. She had been warned several times (not just this day, but previous times as well).
On numerous occasions our staff has taken extra time to not only help her shop, but to bring clothing to the dressing room for her to try on. They have even covered her and calmed her when she disrobed in view of other customers.
She did have a ride home that particular day, and was, in fact in her neighbor’s car when she became belligerent and started cursing. So, when the young man said she was stranded in the rain, it was because she got out of the car and told her ride to leave without her.
Her behavior was escalating and unsettling to our other customers. Being unable to calm her this time, our staff called the authorities to come and assist us.
We care deeply for all of our clients and do our best to help each individual, but we also have a responsibility to maintain an atmosphere of safety for all of our customers, clients, volunteers and staff. Unfortunately, sometimes it comes becomes necessary for us to seek outside assistance.
I am sorry he would not allow our staff the opportunity to explain this to him, but rather chose to keep misplacing blame on the church. We understand his being upset by what he witnessed, as it is upsetting to us as well. We wish we never had to deal with such situations, but it is, in fact, a very real part of the work we do, especially when dealing with people who are hurting so deeply, oftentimes accompanied by deep seated issues of various types and proportions.
We believe it is extremely important to have a heart that is willing to hear the full story, rather than judging a situation simply by a single incident and one’s perception of what took place.
Things are not always as they seem, and I firmly believe this was the case in this situation.
Grateful Hearts exists to provide hope and help for the hurting, and though we do not “pride ourselves” in this (as was mentioned in the former editorial). We are humbled and honored to care for those in our community who often feel beat down by life and are in despair.
It is our desire to offer a listening ear, a smile, and words of encouragement, along with offering basic essential needs.
We are here to help make their day a little brighter, and give them hope for a better tomorrow.
Blair Pietrini
Founder/Director Grateful Hearts
Local PTA member opposes Village 605 sign
Editor’s note: The following is a letter originally sent to Los Alamitos Mayor Shelley Hasslebrink and the rest of the Los Al City Council last week. Vanessa H. Widener has given the News Enterprise permission to publish that letter here.
Dear Mayor Hasselbrink and Council Members,
I live in Rossmoor. I am a PTA member and parent of two children in the Los Alamitos School District. I’m writing you to articulate the serious concerns arising from the Village 605 freeway pylon sign.
I believe the City of Los Alamitos is doing what it believes is in the best interest of the community by approving the Village 605 project particularly because it will generate much needed sales tax revenue.
However, I would urge the City of Los Alamitos and Lincoln Property Company to find a balance between the Village 605 development and the community.
One way that balance can be achieved is by no freeway pylon sign.
The freeway pylon sign will be seen not by the community, but by a captive audience namely, the students at Oak Middle School as well as the hundreds of children who use the Oak Middle School basketball courts, track and athletic fields on a daily basis. Regardless of the types of businesses that are advertised on the freeway pylon sign, it will be a constant commercial advertisement, which is the antithesis of promoting an educational environment conducive to wellness and learning, and will be an eye-sore, to say the least.
This is in addition to the stated concerns regarding the effect the shadows from freeway pylon sign may have on the Oak track and fields. Not to mention the fact that the freeway pylon sign will be visible from the north end of Rossmoor which may adversely affect property values and which will undoubtedly alienate the very community the developer is counting on to patronize the businesses.
The developer’s website – www.village605.com – states as follows: “Village 605’s premier freeway orientation, high average household incomes, huge traffic volumes and dominant freeway pylon signage will provide an unparalleled destination that will cater to the cities of Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Cypress, Long Beach and Cerritos.” (Emphasis added.) By the developer’s own words, the freeway pylon signage will DOMINATE the landscape and seeks to exploit the freeway traffic. This dovetails into the next concern: traffic and safety. The removal of the freeway pylon sign will also have the effect of potentially reducing transient traffic off the 605 Freeway thereby focusing on the safety of our students.
The concern of the dominant freeway pylon sign being used to drive transient traffic off the 605 Freeway is amplified by the fact that 365 by Whole Foods is seeking an alcohol license for “instructional tastings” (presumably wine/beer tasting) and it is likely Blaze Pizza will seek a license to sell beer and wine as well.
As there is now an increased community awareness of the Village 605 project, more and more people are speaking up in opposition to the freeway pylon sign.
There is a Change.org Petition in opposition to the freeway pylon sign, which is gaining momentum: http://bit.ly/2mhrscQ
Thank you for your time and your continued best efforts to serve our community.
Vanessa H. Widener
PTA Member, Los Alamitos School District Parent & Alumni
The Diet of Lent
Dear Editor,
March 1st marks the beginning of Lent, the 40-day period preceding
Easter, when many Christians abstain from animal foods in remembrance of Jesus 40 days of fasting in the wilderness before launching his ministry.
The call to refrain from eating animals is as old as the Bible. In Genesis 1:29, God commands humans to eat only plants; then Prophet Isaiah predicts that “none will hurt or destroy on God’s holy mountain.”
A number of Christian leaders have followed the call, including Methodist founder John Wesley, Salvation Army founders William and Catherine Booth, Seventh-day Adventist Church founder Ellen G. White, and prominent evangelical leader Franklin Graham.
A meat-free diet is not just about Christian devotion. Dozens of medical studies have linked consumption of animal products with elevated risk of heart failure, stroke, cancer, and other killer diseases. A United Nations report named meat production as the largest source of greenhouse gases and water pollution. Undercover investigations have documented farm animals being caged, crowded, mutilated, beaten, and shocked.
Lent offers a superb opportunity to honor Christ’s powerful message of compassion, but also to protect the health of our family and our planet Earth by adopting a meat-free diet.
Lucas Bailey
Los Alamitos
More analysis of the Village 605 project
Dear Editor,
Please note this quote from the Los Alamitos Commercial Corridors Plan–page 47. This plan is referred to in the EIR as having its objectives satisfied. This, however, is not true both for the Freeway Pylon Sign and the worsening of traffic congestion. In fact these two items result in the exact opposite of what is stated in the Los Alamitos Commercial Corridors Plan on pages 47 & 53 which are ignored in the analysis of the EIR conforming to the plan.
The second site consists of just over 13 acres of City properties (City Hall, Police Department, and City Yard), other public and quasi-public buildings, and SuperMedia (on the western 10 acres).
Private development interest, along with the City’s willingness to relocate its own facilities, indicate that this area could support a variety of uses, including a theater, hotel, or senior housing. The area is also near Los Alamitos Boulevard and could serve as a southern anchor with additional redevelopment along Katella Avenue—though it should not be developed to potentially compete with the uses along Los Alamitos Boulevard.
These parcels, however, are not visible to those traveling along the 605 freeway due to the location and configuration of the on- and off-ramps. Potential commercial uses should not rely upon freeway exposure; those that would rely upon such exposure would likely request a large pole sign to gain exposure along the freeway.
Doug Smith
Los Alamitos
These letters appeared in the March 1, 2017 print edition of the News Enterprise.