First, I agree that any changes need sufficient public airing. No debate about that.
The reason I asked the intentionally provocative question is, for the benefit of residents who do not have supportive housing nearby, - can you identify the primary benefits this law brings? Are you concerned about crime, about strapped public services, property values, public officials whose attention is disproportionally drawn to these institutions vs other residents, etc...? The arguments to retain the law would be more meaningful if they had tangible benefits attached.
In your tenuous examples below there are obvious benefits that laws against violent crime bring society, and they should be enforced. In a more relevant context this law is more like the parking requirements we place on new institutions, or the resturants/bars that request to extend their hours or alter the types of alcohol they serve. If the city council routinely disregarded every commercial applicants inability to meet parking requirements (and I do not think that is the case, at least in SW Minneapolis) I would expect that law to be up for review as well.
Since you mentioned Kingfield, a few years ago (5 or 6) there was a battered womens shelter in the old convent of Incarnation Church (38th and Pleasant). The church needed to sell the building - and ended up selling to the Center for Performing Arts. Because I lived nearby we were invited to the public hearing on what this would be like. There was considerable aprehension about what a change from the womens shelter would mean - traffic, building changes, noise, etc... There was no neighborhood movement or sentiment that I could detect which wanted the battered womens program to move. That program had always been a good neighbor and the residents around would have been very happy to have it stay. In the end I think the decision to sell turned on the financials of the deal - but certainly I never heard anyone in Kingfield pushing to get the center moved out. Guess where it moved to? I believe it was a church in Whittier. I don't know for sure but I would not be surprised if the zoning requirements were waived for that program as well.
-Mike Hess
Kingfield
>From: "JIM GRAHAM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Mike Hess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: [Mpls] If you live near supportive housing
>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:23:32 -0600
>
>Mike, this would be a little easier to swallow if your Kingfield
>Neighborhood had not been so successful in fighting to keep out supportive
>housing such as Prodigal House. I am sure many on the "List" remember David
>Brauer's explanation of how his neighborhood was successful. Powerful
>Neighborhoods have nothing to fear, you are correct. This has the effect of
>emphasizing the disparity between neighborhoods and the "Pattern of
>Discrimination" which the City of Minneapolis is engaged in.
>
>There is a law against rape also, and it is regularly circumvented in these
>same neighborhoods. Phillips had eight (8) rapes just last month alone.
>Revoking the law on rape would possibly reflect such a reality, but I think
>you will have people up in arms if you attempt to revoke it. There are laws
>against drug trafficking, and as a matter of fact, the City Government and
>Hennepin County Judges have concentrated it in the same neighborhoods. The
>City ignores the LAW in these areas, but very few would support repealing
>the law. Even though sometimes there are 30 people breaking the law and
>"dealing" on one city block at one given time.
>
>No, the City needs to start enforcing the law and stop discriminating
>against poor neighborhoods with large minority populations. The incredible
>thing is the City Government intends to attempt changing the law, without
>any input from the communities. The only public hearing was before the
>Planning Commission and attended only by residents from Prospect Park and
>Ventura Village, and we were there on other issues. None of the
>neighborhoods even knew there were going to be PUBLIC Hearings. The only
>residents and Neighborhood people attending opposed the rush to judgment
>that was going on. At the Z&P meeting public input was NOT EVEN ALLOWED.
>Why are City Council persons so afraid of the public reviewing these issues?
>What is being slipped through that they fear public scrutiny on? I can not
>believe Dan Niziolek, Paul Ostrow, Scott Benson, and Barb Johnson would
>allow this to happen given their history of supporting Neighborhood
>inclusion. Of course Robert Lillegren can be counted on to at least support
>neighborhood involvement, heck he even answered his own phone when I called.
>It took a moment to realize the person named Robert on the phone was the
>person "Robert" who I had called.
>
>Neighborhoods are discussing the issues now and calling for a City-wide
>meeting to discuss and have input into this decision. The City Council and
>Mayor can still go ahead and do what they wish, but will not be able to hide
>behind the excuse of not knowing what people want. If you believe, as I do,
>that the residents of Minneapolis deserve at least proper notification and a
>true PUBLIC Hearing, then contact the City Council and the Mayors Office
>today. We are only asking for a fair public hearing and justice.
>
>Call
>or e-mail Mayor Rybak at R.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] or the
>Chair of the Zoning Committee, [EMAIL PROTECTED], and don't
>forget your own City Council Representative, or other council people,
>example [EMAIL PROTECTED] or call 673-22your ward number.
>Tell them that they should at least allow an opportunity for public input so
>to please wait until a Minneapolis wide meeting on the issue. Neighborhoods
>are organizing such a meeting at the present time.
>
>Jim Graham,
>Ventura Village
>
>
>
>
>From: Mike Hess
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 3:46 PM
>Subject: Re: [Mpls] If you live near supportive housing
>
>
>I don't want to appear insensitive to the neighborhoods that have an
>excessively high concentration of supportive housing. But...
>It appears now that the law is regularly circumvented and has been for some
>time. If politicians lack the desire to enforce the existing law what is
>the point of keeping it? It would be one thing if supportive housing was
>distributed widely through the city and this revocation would trigger an
>avalance for example on Whittier, but doesn't revoking this law simply
>reflect reality? If another proposal came up that would violate this rule,
>but it was a good project and would benefit a class of people, chances are
>it would be approved despite the law.
>Mike Hess
>Kingfield
Get 2 months FREE*.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
