> From:Tom Berthiaume > > Those of you that couldn't attend the oral arguments that took place last > week in District Court regarding what is commonly known as the > "Lydia House > Suit" may enjoy a few bits and pieces from my imperfect notes. It was high > drama....
Tom, Thanks for posting that. I�ve read many of the documents related to this project, including the task force report, and I attended the federal hearing, but I was unable to attend this hearing (though I got a summary from someone else, and it was substantially the same as yours in your post). What I think is amazing is this: Lydia house was initially touted to funding agencies as supportive housing. If my understanding is correct, it was touted to some funding agencies as one kind of supportive housing, and to others as another kind of supportive housing. Back then, before the Whittier/Stevens Sq. opposition even started to this project, and before I (and many others) had formed an opinion one way or another, I was very uncomfortable with the latitude that seemed to be taken by the proponents of this project in how they described it. They seemed to be telling each potential funding agency exactly what they wanted to hear (and avoiding what they would not want to hear). To some extent one could argue that this is what one does in writing grants� you highlight appropriate parts of your project, etc. But that is not what I�m talking about here .. they seemed, to be blunt about it, rather unconcerned with being truthful. I thought that ironic because this is a church-based project. (Although I hasten to add that there is a non-profit �foundation� fronting for the church.) I wondered what kind of religion supported that sort of behavior. (Christian, it turns out.) Then, at the federal hearing, it seemed to me virtually impromptu, those arguing for Lydia were switching the story yet again, trying to argue to the judge that this was some kind of apartment complex. Now, it is being clearly called an apartment complex, and they are trying to attach their wagon to the �affordable housing� star. In short, half truths and partial lies have become an all out campaign of disinformation. In front of a judge, and about federal (and other?) funding. I find the association between this city and this church, in this twisted and ironic play of blatant dishonesty, to be deeply disturbing. Now I also wonder how many members of this church feel comfortable supporting this kind of tactic. Is it OK because they are Christians, and thus have some sort of blessing? Or is it OK because they feel the ends justify the means? Is the developer�s fee of a half a mil sufficient to assume forgiveness? It would be interesting to hear from more people about this issue. Greg Laden Bancroft Neighborhood _______________________________________ 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
