Mr.Luce does some rather nifty slight of hand with the census data in an attempt to deny the facts on the ground. The census data from four intersecting census tracts cannot and do not measure the impact on a specific site. Besides it's apple and oranges.
So let's just measure it the way the law does, by 1/4 mile. Within 1/4 of 1920 LaSalle there is a population of approximately 1450 and of that approximately 416, in 17 separate sites, require supervised housing facilities, i.e., supportive housing. The Kowalskis that is closing has nearly identical demographics, as it is only 1/2 block away. No evil "marketing consultant" created this situation. The numbers we cite come from the City of Minneapolis Planning Department and are included in the Lydia House Task Force Report (www.TheLydiaHouse.com ). This discussion is not about "getting rid" of anyone, and it is unfair to say it is. It is about NEW supportive housing sites. In spite of Mr. Luce's misleading use of statistics, at least it is a discussion about numbers. While Mr. Luce seems comfortable with a 30% disabled population within a 1/4 radius, there probably is some point, ( 50%, 80%,100%?) at which he would agree it is bad public policy, bad for the disabled, and very discouraging to a future grocer. What number should we consider too low or too high? What amazes me is that Mr. Luce, a good urban guy, would be so highly motivated to run to the defense of the many (38) prosperous, fortress-like neighborhoods who accept no responsibility for caring for the disabled. Why so eager to let them off the hook? Why beat up on the neighborhoods with the very best record of caring? Tom Berthiaume Loring, Navarre, Stevens Square, Whittier _______________________________________ 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
