I agree with Frederic's comments (among others) about "the building already
being there", and also agree with those that feel a heavy concentration of such
facilities can become counterproductive. My question is, (and I'm not familiar
with this issue) have other uses for the building been considered? The aging
population is already requiring increasing numbers of assisted living units, for
example, which are much preferable and more affordable than nursing homes for
elderly residents. A 90 year old neighbor of mine recently waited well over a
year to get into senior housing that isn't exactly assisted living, which was
her preference.
The building is there, but that doesn't mean it can only be used for the purpose
currently proposed; there are options and compromises available.
David Piehl
Central / 8th Ward
Fredric Markus wrote:
Tim Connolly wrote earlier on the Lydia House scenario and I agree with
him on several points - an appropriate reuse of a rather specialized
building, the absence of an alternative proposal for this building, a
net reduction of thirty individuals from the previous tenancy, assisted
living as opposed to the no-holds barred SRO/efficiency alternative, a
faith-based affirmative response to the affordable housing crisis. To
this I would add that this facility will be helpful to the desire of
such service providers as Simpson Housing Services and St. Stephens
Shelter who are looking for ways to find stable housing for special
needs individuals who come through their doors in increasing numbers and
who need long-term attention.
Tim's reference to the rude, shrill, and contemptuous behavior of the
Lydia House opponents is not news to me. My time in Whittier in the
1990s included some really obnoxious episodes and I'm not surprised to
hear that recidivism is not just about chemical dependency any more. I
hope the pastor and congregation of Plymouth Congregational Church will
hold firm to their principles and understand that the picketing they are
apparently about to receive comes from a small group of individuals who
have been contrarian about social service initiatives for many years.
The neighborhood pattern is of resistance to social service functions
that make good use of buildings for which there haven't been any
credible alternative re-use proposals prior to their arrival, sometimes
after years of standing vacant. Where are the development dollars to do
otherwise with these "white elephant" structures? Where any civic
sensitivity to the needs of persons served by these worthy endeavors?
If these were not pre-existing structures, a more convincing argument
could be made about dispersal of function. Bear in mind that
propinquity to other existing service providers remains a salient
argument: ready access to government agencies, health services, and
pedestrian-friendly transportation. These are central city features, not
attributes of the city's fringes. Bear in mind also that there are
twenty thousand tenants in and around the two NRP neighborhoods whose
voices are not heard here and whose needs are also germane here. These
are neighborhoods of "first arrival" - as they have been since the 19th
century - and room must forever be made for all sorts of folks,
including those who have special needs.
NRP process has given a few property owners quite the soapbox for
voicing their opposition to these structural realities and their more
sober arguments about concentration are in fact quite valid. There are
unresolved questions of balance. The rub is that quarter-mile spacing
doesn't solve the problem because there is no municipal muscle requiring
the arrival of dispersed facilties elsewhere in town. Quarter-mile
spacing as established gives opponents of supportive housing a fig leaf
covering the bullying behavior Tim found so tedious but remains silent
on the more difficult and clearly necessary task of ensuring adequate
replacement/dispersal of these clustered functions all around the town.
Remember the tuberculosis sanitaria and state mental institutions that
warehoused their inhabitants in rather grand settings? Imagine how
expensive it would be to build Lydia House from scratch on ground
overlooking the Mississippi River. How likely is that dispersal
scenario? Why not have some (but not too many!) intimate installations
in the heart of the city where immediate support is available and the
possibility exists for everyday paticipation in civic life? Why not make
creative reuse of existing structures a priority? Why give a residential
veto to the exercise of these municipal responsibilities? Why risk
running afoul of federal statutes about housing discrimination against
persons with disabilities?
Fred Markus Horn Terrace Ward Ten
______________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message is private and confidential
information which may also be subject to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. This information is intended only for the individual or
entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or
copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of
the message. Thank you.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
