Jim Graham said: > > Now imagine you and family members are addicted to crack cocaine. Imagine > having to live within ten feet of 20 or 30 drug dealers. Imagine that each > time you leave or come to your home you have to fight your way through those > drug dealers to get in to your front door. Anytime you feel a little > depressed or your resolve weakens, even a tiny bit, it is there for your > "need". You open your window in the summer time and the dealer is right > there beside your window to sell you a moment of happiness and a life of > grief. I know it would be unimaginable by an ethical organization, but that > is what PPL has proposed with the CVI project. That is what the City of > Minneapolis has violated its own law to allow to happen. That is what > Hennepin County will pay for. We, as taxpayers, are to pay for the > continued addiction of unfortunate people who need our help. That is why > Ventura Village residents and business owners are suing Minneapolis and PPL > in Federal Court. We are suing to stop that discrimination and that > exploitation of unfortunate people. >
Mark Anderson reply: Could you explain this lawsuit a little more? Is it just to uphold the 1/4 mile rule? If so, you are using an awfully broad brush law to fight some very specific problems. I agree with your example that siting drug addict supportive housing in a drug infested neighborhood probably doesn't make sense. Maybe we should have a rule that would prohibit such siting. But I don't see what that has to do with the 1/4 mile rule. Mark Anderson Bancroft _______________________________________ 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
