In what is sure to gain me very little, if any, friends and probably a few enemies, I am weighing in on Lydia House with what will probably not be a very popular opinion on either side.
For the record, I do absolutely think that Stevens Square-Loring Heights, Whittier, and a number of other neighborhoods do have an overabundance of supportive housing, and I do think that something needs to be done to stem the tide of this trend, however, I don't think that Lydia House is the battle to make a stand on this with. "When then?" do you say, or "if we let this go through...." Listen and I'll tell you. First, I think there are some things that should have been done differently on both sides. On Plymouth, I don't think they gathered input from the neighborhood or were very forthcoming regarding their plans on what to do. They decided what they wanted to do and moved ahead and then told the neighborhoods, "oh by the way....." I think a lot of what is happening now could have been dealt with or circumvented if they had talked with the neighborhoods in the first place. On the opponents side, I get real leery when I hear anyone who is not or has not been poor, a person of color, or part of a disadvantaged population such as homeless , etc. start talking about "ghettoizing those people" or segregation. It really concerns me when any group starts talking about the needs of another group without having significant contact with that group. To me, it's like a group of men talking about what a woman needs, thinks and feels. This doesn't mean that none of the people who have responded have no experience, but when I questioned the people who wrote the report or at least the reps that showed up at the meetings, none had experience with the mental health field, and none were people of color, and none had talked to members of the population that this program would serve. For me Lydia House is a separate issue from the 1/4 mile spacing ordinance and it's enforcement for a number of reasons, but I think after the initial problems on both sides listed above, this situation devolved into a tit for tat fight, and people are using the principle of the 1/4 mile spacing to justify opposition to Lydia House, and that I don't agree with. Why you ask? First, because the facility was already supportive housing for years, and then has lain dormant until Plymouth purchased it. So to me it is not adding another supportive housing unit, but rather revitalizing one. Second, Plymouth has been a supportive partner of the neighborhoods for many decades, and I would think if anyone deserved a little leeway and at least a civil discussion about matters it would be them. Not a very popular opinion, I'm sure, but civil discourse depends on people being able to sit down and discuss differences with an open mind. I haven't seen that on either side. Plymouth should have come and talked and worked with neighborhoods, but it was not Plymouth who made the first legal actions but some of the neighbors which was preceeded by their picketing the Church on Sundays and other actions. As someone who has tried to be fair, I can understand and appreciate someone who says they want this facility to be something different because it will decrease their property values, or because they own a business and this is supposedly a decrease in customers. I don't agree with these, but can appreciate them and even consider them valid. But what I've heard from people is that they're "defending the rights of vulnerable adults" and fighting for parity in the city. The problem is is that I haven't heard a single one that has talked with or worked with these populations....I have. Since this issue was coming before the board of SSCO, I took it upon myself to drive the distance between the supportive housing (which did not confirm what was in the report, but mine was not an official reading) and talk with the residents of some of the places. I also have a background of working with mentally ill and homeless populations. Not a one of them felt ghettoized or segregated. More to the point, they appreciated the closeness to active neighborhoods and resources. To clarify, Lydia House is not proposing to be a halfway house or shelter, but rather permanent housing for people who have had a history of mental illness, chemical dependency, or HIV, and largely people of color and/or homeless. While this can include all of the horrors people can dream up in terms of neighbors, it's also important to note that anyone who has Depression has a history of mental illness, anyone who is a recovering alcoholic has a history of chemical dependency, and even pro basketball stars are HIV positive. A lot of suppositions have been made about who should be here, and where their jobs will be, gaining a clearer and more truthful pictu re sometimes helps clarify things. If you're going to say that people in supportive housing have a right to live where they want, you should actually ask them where they want to live. Further, if you're going to champion the cause, follow it through with more lobbying and fighting on the city and state level. Not saying it hasn't happened, but the majority of people I've seen "championing" this cause, I haven't seen weigh in on this issue or go and lobby for the rights of the individuals prior to it coming to their backyard. I am not opposed to Lydia House, because I have worked with the populations that it will serve, and believe that they have a right to be in neighborhoods that they wish to. I love my neighborhood and would rather be reaching out and inclusive to these populations so that they feel a better sense of welcoming, and live in a place where people are friendly (mostly) and where access is easier (you can dispute this all you want, but I've lived in Golden Valley, buses run more frequently, stores and services are more accessible, and you're not as isolated down here as you are out there.) I do think the 1/4 spacing needs to be dealt with, but I think we deal with the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter. And I think it is a really valid reason to be opposed to this because of property values or business concerns, but I haven't heard people express this, rather they've talked about segregation and vulnerable rights, and the majority don't seem to have any experience with this, so it is near impossible for me to support or consider it valid. Bottom line: I think this project is going through and I think more ground would be gained in trying to work with Plymouth to structure the program, and then putting a serious movement ahead on distributing supportive housing throughout the city and staying with it. Just my bound to be unpopular two cents. Jonathan Palmer Stevens Square-Loring Heights. _______________________________________ 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
