Jim, Could you explain to me how filing a lawsuit to bar people from living in a certain area is fighting to PREVENT discrimination? I'm not an attorney nor do I have your years of experience in this area, but it seems to me just from reading what's been put out here and what I know of the situation that the only thing this suit and similar objections to initiatives of the nature such as this and Lydia House are doing is trying to prevent more minorities, disabled and poor in Minneapolis from moving into the specific neighborhoods. More to the point, these claims are made under the guise of "protecting" these individuals and attacking the suburbs for not "taking their share."
Now from a legal standpoint, I think this and other suits have very valid claims in saying that the ordinances such as the quarter mile spacing laws are not being obeyed, however that would be an issue of wanting these ordinances to be strictly enforce because of not wanting these facilities not because other neighborhoods are not assisting. Also, as I understand it, this ordinance was set up to prevent people from "dumping" or concentrating "undesirables" into areas. Which is the reason that individuals must apply for a variance regarding the quarter-mile spacing. So that the neighborhoods and the city could analyze if this was happening. Having more than one supportive housing facility within a quarter mile does not constitute a ghetto or concentration. In addition, given the change in population and the housing crunch, this ordinance may be outdated. Perhaps we've come to a point where we cannot uphold this if we're going to make certain that everyone has a place to live. And in my mind, having a place to live is much more important than how close it is to a supportive housing facility. More to the point, if Ventura Village and other neighborhoods are really concerned about discrimination, why is the suit not against the white "fortress" neighborhoods for barring these facilities from moving in there? Or other cities? It seems as if the lawsuit is against the City for allowing the facility to move in Ventura Village not for barring it from moving into say Kenwood. The latter would be discrimination, the former appears much more of a NIMBY issue. More to the point, following your credo "... to guarantee the safety and happiness of our most vulnerable." I would think you would want facilities such Collaborative Village to be in a safe and welcoming environment such as Ventura Village. Some place that they know the people are concerned about their wellbeing, which is what has been stated is the basis for the suit. That being the case, is it a bigger or smaller step to have them in a safe environement such as Ventura Village where people know to watch out for them as well as know what to watch out for? I would much rather be in that neighborhood than one that didn't want me and would not care if something happened to me. On that same point, as we look at the wellbeing of these individuals, having them in areas which have better access to supportive services or even common everyday services such as grocery stores is probably better than living out in Golden Valley where it could take an hour on a bus to get to a store or a job. Not very supportive for an individual needing a little extra care. I'm hoping that you can provide a little bit better insight into these questions, because as I've raised them with people concerning issues of this nature, all I've gotten is rhetoric about discrimination, and as I mentioned in the first part of this I'm not seeing it. And perhaps you've got a better understanding than the people I've talked to that can frame this as a discriminatory issue rather than one of not wanting "those people" in "my" neighborhood. Thanks. Jonathan Palmer Victory "�w���b��,����� (��P�� ��'��.�Ȩ��� �r����,�g��� ��&�[&��+�j+�+����m�'���r��x8�z�h�ب��ݚ�ކ�i���zj ��2��?��l
