Fitzwater Draws a Line on Room at the Inn: Not at 107 Adams
by Brad Boeckmann
Jefferson City Mayor Ron Fitzwater delivered his clearest public rejection yet of the proposed Room at the Inn shelter at 107 Adams Street during an appearance Thursday on Wake Up Jeff City.
Fitzwater supported Housing the Community Jefferson City’s plan to ask the City Council to postpone its August 3 public hearing until October 5. He said the additional time could allow tempers to cool, give city officials and shelter organizers an opportunity to clarify expectations, and reopen conversations about possible alternative locations. But he left little doubt about his view of the current proposal.
“I don’t think it was going to have a positive vote on August 3,” Fitzwater said. Later, he was more direct: “We’re not trying to stonewall it. We’re just saying this is not going to work there. Let’s find a better place.”
That distinction matters. Fitzwater didn’t argue that Jefferson City has no homelessness problem or that another shelter is unnecessary. He said the city created its Task Force on Homelessness because the problem requires action, not another study that disappears onto a shelf. His objection is that 107 Adams doesn’t fit with the direction Jefferson City is trying to take the surrounding area.
The proposed shelter would sit near a corridor where the city expects hundreds of millions of dollars in public and private investment. Fitzwater pointed to the new hotel and conference center, possible development of the Capitol complex, the state office laboratory near the former penitentiary, rehabilitation of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce building, and potential redevelopment of the prison property.
“We are investing there, and we’re trying to create that as a business hub for the city the way it used to be,” Fitzwater said. “I don’t think 107 fits into what’s being looked at for that entire area as we look to redevelop.”
That is the economic-development argument against the site. The more complicated issue involves the population Room at the Inn is specifically designed to serve.
The Salvation Army is already expanding its Center of Hope from 31 beds to 62, adding space for families and increasing its case-management capacity. Fitzwater described himself as a strong supporter of that work, but he also explained why Room at the Inn believes another shelter is still necessary.
“What we hear from the people at Room at the Inn is Salvation Army has standards that you have to agree to if you’re going to go into their programming,” he said. “And there are just some folks that don’t want to agree to those terms.”
That lower-barrier approach is central to Room at the Inn’s mission. It allows the organization to serve people who might not enter a more structured program, including some who would otherwise remain outside during dangerous winter weather. It’s also central to the concern surrounding the Adams Street proposal.
The question isn’t whether people who fail to meet the Salvation Army’s requirements deserve to freeze. The question is what rules, staffing, security and neighborhood protections must accompany a facility specifically intended to serve people who will not or cannot comply with another shelter’s standards.
Fitzwater focused particularly on what would happen during the hours when guests couldn’t remain inside. An overnight shelter may provide a bed in the evening, but it does not eliminate the daytime effects on nearby churches, businesses, libraries, government offices and public spaces.
“Even with a resource center, those folks aren’t going to be in a resource center all the time,” he said. “Where do they go when the bed and the sleeping capacity is not open?”
That’s a question Housing the Community Jefferson City will need to answer more clearly during the proposed 90-day delay. What behavior would prevent someone from entering or remaining in the facility? How would intoxication, threats, harassment and repeated rule violations be handled? Would professional security be present? What responsibility would fall on Jefferson City police? How would complaints from neighboring businesses be recorded and resolved?
The mayor also disclosed that the city is considering new codes and requirements for shelters and resource centers. That may ultimately become as important as the decision over 107 Adams itself.
“If you’re going to set up a facility that handles a resource center or an overnight shelter, day shelter, what kind of standards do you have to meet to be able to do that?” Fitzwater asked.
Clear standards would help both sides. Shelter organizers deserve to know what the city will require before they spend months raising money, purchasing property and preparing an application. Residents and businesses deserve to know that approval will not be granted without enforceable expectations involving security, hours, staffing, transportation and neighborhood impact.
Finding another site won’t be easy. Fitzwater acknowledged that another possible location had already generated pushback and said nearly everyone involved supports shelter services in principle until the proposed building is near their own neighborhood.
“If you ask them, ‘Do you want it in your neighborhood?’ they would all say no,” he said.
Housing the Community Jefferson City’s board still believes 107 Adams is a strong location, but it has said it is willing to consider another property or collaborative approach. Fitzwater, in turn, committed the city to working with the organization on alternatives.
The next 90 days should therefore produce more than another round of competing petitions and emotional public comments. The city needs written standards. Room at the Inn needs a detailed operating plan. Both sides need to identify realistic properties and explain what gap will remain after the Salvation Army expansion.
Fitzwater made his position on 107 Adams clear. The harder work now is proving that “not there” does not quietly become “nowhere.”
Watch Mayor Fitzwater’s full interview on parking, the conference center, Room at the Inn, housing and Ward 3:
Watch on Rumble
Leave a Reply