Timothy Connelly wrote: "Do the residents of Stevens Square and Whittier who oppose this project believe in the concept of change? Healing? Remission? Redemption?"
This really isn't the question. The question is: "is a segregated, saturated environment the most conducive to healing, remission, and redemption? Or would these needs be best served with increased integration into the fabric of the entire city?" The secondary question, in my opinion, is whether it is fair for the city to expect those living in one neighborhood to bear the greatest burden of any "social ill." The analogy between those suffering from mental illness and ethnic minorities seems not to work very well, to me. In fact, it seems to argue against the point Mr. Connelly is making. When ethnic minorities are coerced into one core neighborhood by the policies of the city or private groups, these actions are decried as ghettoizing and redlining. My answer to Mr. Connelly's rhetorical question is yes, it is about equal access. Shouldn't those suffering from mental illness have access to Kenwood and Eagan? Does Mr. Connelly truly believe that the concentration of those with mental illness in the core neighborhoods is voluntary? To characterize the neighbors who oppose Lydia house as uncaring folks running to their lawyers to deprive those who are worth less than they are of their rights to liberty and happiness is really unfair. And, in my opinion, it clouds the constructive discussion we should be having about better models for community inclusion of the mentally ill. Robin Garwood Marcy-Holmes _______________________________________ 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
