Consider, however, the organization the city has chosen to trust with its proposed program, which would serve up to 150 women and children, many from abusive environments and many of whom face illiteracy, no job history, and/or patterns of addiction, according to statistics offered at a public meeting in Mt. Airy on March 29. The work of sheltering them ought to go to an experienced entity. Yet according to Robert Hess of Philadelphia's Office of Emergency Shelter and Services, New Covenant Church would be the administrator. And there's the rub.

For starters, New Covenant's staff admits that they have never run such a program. Surely the overseers of a multimillion-dollar project ought to have job experience. But just as importantly, they ought to be capable of managing issues with sensitivity, good at accepting and integrating feedback, accessible to those in their purview and at ease communicating with multiple parties.

As one of the neighbors on the other side of New Covenant's stone wall who tried for two years to get their attention, I would like you to know that New Covenant's leaders failed to show those capacities.

Thus, the issue of concern to many neighbors is whether New Covenant Church has demonstrated the skills to manage this city program. If a vote taken at an April 24 meeting convened by West Mt. Airy Neighbors and East Mt. Airy Neighbors is any indication, it has not.

To the city at large, this vote of no confidence may seem puzzling. Yet being concerned about what would happen if problems arose that required New Covenant's response is not foolishness. For example, there's figuring out where program residents will visit with older siblings, children, parents, partners and others. Although city officials changed course and admitted a need for on-site visits at the public meeting, a New Covenant leader reiterated afterward that such visits could not be allowed because of "safety issues." If not the program administrator, who is going to face and address those admitted safety concerns? To some familiar with their large neighbor, this vanishing act is not new.

Between 2002 and 2004 a neighbor and I worked as coordinators of Neighbors of New Covenant to get the organization to take responsibility for its impact on near neighbors. Despite the civility and thoroughness of our efforts, we were either ignored or treated with hostility, and the church failed to solve the noise problem. So who will we call if problems arise with a New Covenant-based program? Are those people going to answer the phone? Are they going to take our concerns seriously? If they do, and if they decide to act, how long is it going to take them to figure out and implement a solution?

Keep in mind that turning the volume down on a PA system was beyond the New Covenant administration's capacities not long ago. Even after receiving dozens of calls from neighbors (on top of more official efforts), the church allowed its youth minister to add a Friday night dance in the gymnasium behind our homes, worsening our situation. In two-plus years, the noise was never adequately addressed. Instead, it ended when the youth minister left due to unrelated difficulties.

Several leaders admitted their poor performance as neighbors at the March 29 meeting and claimed to wish to mend their ways. Yet this about-face occurred only when the staff was in front of city officials from whom they seek a lucrative contract. Where was the neighborly love when we were just the slugs across the wall?

Still, I don't intend to curse the future. With several new people at its helm, perhaps the organization truly intends to change. If so, bravo. If not, good luck gaining community support for any addition to the campus that would require its staff to have the abilities to anticipate, respect, listen and respond.

Janet Benton is a writer, editor and teacher.