In a message dated 1/12/02 1:06:31 AM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
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.
(snip-edit delete)
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.
(snip)
{ Keith says; I don't think JP, a stakeholder, should feel "leery"
when other stakeholders (i.e., homeowners, renters, business people, and
others) try to avoid the "ghettoizing" of their own neighborhoods. A downward
trend, the funneling of disturbed, dysfunctional and criminal individuals; a
hyper concentration of socially problematic people, into any particular
neighborhood is unjust to all. The parallel hyper concentration of social
service contact points (i.e. plethora of "a hot and a cot" type services) is
further unfair to all neighborhood stakeholders.}
(snip)
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.
(snip)
{ Keith says; But I am sure neighbors know when the neighborhood is being
buried. Victoria Heller posted it best...'One cookie won't make you fat...' I
think the City and others have made Whittier and Phillips "eat" way to many
cookies. These areas don't care what flavor the cookie is anymore, or what
our DT and Suburban "Madison Avenue/PT Barnums" label it. Let do gooders and
non-profiteers show respect for hard fought zoning rules, too.}
(snip)
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.
(snip)
{Keith says; It has so-called "lain dormant" but other social service
transfer points have sprung up in the hood (pardon me for truth) like weeds
and in numbers adverse to all. Also, city zoning rules take hold when a
particular nonconforming use is not upheld or used for years. I own a former
gas station site subjected to that rule. And it is fair. Also, many would
agree, Plymouth's stealth tactics, hostility, threats, and actions quickly
zero out any supposed right to "leeway" in their neighborhood aggression.}
(snip-edit delete)
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.
(snip)
{ Keith says; I think the above is an unfair recap of the history and
actions of all parties in this matter and is biased toward the church.}
(snip)
The problem is is that I haven't heard a single one that has talked with or
worked with these populations....I have.
(Snip-edit delete)
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
picture
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.
(snip)
{ Keith says; Others may, but I will never,"...say that people in
supportive housing have a right to live where they want..." on the public
dime. Or as B. Lickness said (paraphrase) by a lake or creek. They also do
not have the right to Supportive Vacations by a gulf, bay, great crater or
coral reef on the public dime. Or a Supportive Transport System like a
Jaguar. NO.}
(snip)
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.
(snip)
{Keith says; Bottom line: Fight for the neighborhood's sanity and
against Lydia House encroachment now. Do not eat one more cookie when you are
already choking. And please, read JP's above paragraph again. Remember the
"No means No" thread this time, not next time!}
(snip)
Just my bound to be unpopular two cents.
Jonathan Palmer
Stevens Square-Loring Heights.
>>
{ } < Above parenthesis remarks are the opinions of Keith Reitman< { }
Near North
_______________________________________
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
