City Gives Final Say on Sycamore Assisted Care Facility
Decatur Metro | January 20, 2010Over at InDecatur, Dave reports that after months of consultation and deliberation, city staff has made a final recommendation to the City Commission regarding the zoning controversy surrounding the Peer Support and Recovery Respite Center at 444 Sycamore Drive.
Quoting at length from a letter of affirmation received from the Executive Director of the Georgia Mental Health Consumer Network in response to questions posed by Decatur’s Planning Director Amanda Thompson, City Manager Peggy Merriss informed commissioners “that the decision of the zoning administrator to allow the Peer Support and Wellness Center to operate a family home is appropriate.”
However, in the very next breath, the letter alerts residents “aggrieved” by the decision that they can still appeal the decision of the zoning administrator to Decatur’s Zoning Board of Appeals.
Some of those very residents wasted little time speaking out about the city’s decision at last night’s city commission meeting. Whether they will appeal the city’s decision remains unclear, as Grace Ann Young, who has spoken as the “aggrieved” residents’ representative up until this point, did not detail next steps in her comments to the commission. But blogger Dave Kell, a Decatur Heights resident himself, promised his readers that “This matter is not going to fade away quietly.”
Latest from Decaturish
Speaking as a resident of the neighborhood who has stayed out of the fight, I’m extraordinarily embarrassed by the threatening and incompetent behavior of the group leading the charge to get rid of the mental health center at all costs. These people need something else to do with their time. This has turned into a witch hunt.
I’m getting conflicting info. Can someone clarify? As best I can tell, the City Commission has no vote on this matter and were only in receipt of a staff decision. The authority, if I’m reading this correctly, lies with the Zoning Board.
If that’s the case, why the heated meeting? You could raise hell over the issue in the privacy of your own living room and have equal impact.
Or am I missing something? Why aren’t the aggrieved just going to where the power is to make the their case?
Scott,
My interpretation is that Peggy Merriss and her staff are the ones who made the decision. Peggy (and many of the staff) attend the Commission meeting and she ultimately answers to the Commission.
The neighbors wanted the Commission to know that they are upset at her decision on this matter.
Thanks, Harry. I guess what I’m getting at is, “to what end?”. That is, if the Commission is not positioned to effect any change, why petition them? Was it just a venting exercise, or was there some hope that the Commission would direct staff to revisit the issue and come up with a different recommendation?
Well the Commission could certainly make their position known on the matter as a purely political statement.
The Commission could also change the zoning law to more specifically endorse or prohibit the use of the property.
To say that the Commission cannot effect change is purely inaccurate. They can do what they want to do if they wanted to.
I’m still having trouble following, Harry. Political statements are mostly for posturing, which doesn’t seem to serve the matter at hand. If the commissioners have not studied the issue to the degree city staff has, why would they be inclined to counter their recommendation? Why would we be better served by a less-considered opinion than a more-considered one?
You’re correct that the commission can enact changes to the zoning law but, even then, those change recommendations are expected to emerge from planning staff and the ZBA. So I’m back to the question I started with. Why don’t the petitioners direct their energies to where they’re most likely to get traction?
Maybe they’re not seeking traction, just caught up in their own action, but they’re such a close-minded faction, they’re now the central attraction and have caused the opposite reaction from what they sought. Or maybe not.
Scott, I think Degreater hinted at the answer below.
The group of residents first went to city staff because they wanted to know whether the city believed the Center was legal or not. But they didn’t receive an immediate answer and it became clear that the city would need to do some research before providing an answer. But then a couple months passed without an answer, so the residents went to Fred Boykin. He suggested they bring it up at a commission meeting, assumedly to put a little heat on the issue and get an answer out of city staff.
City staff just gave its answer this past week. So, while it does make sense to approach the ZBA when you disagree with a city zoning decision, it’s hard to disagree with a decision that has yet to be made. That may be why they took the political-heat route in this case.
No need to name-call smalltowngal.
You’re correct that the commission can enact changes to the zoning law but, even then, those change recommendations are expected to emerge from planning staff and the ZBA.
I have no dog in this fight, but certainly any of the commissioners could propose changes to the zoning ordinance with or without guidance from the planning staff or the ZBA. Is that how legislation is normally done in Decatur? No. But there is nothing that would prevent a commissioner from proposing a change and calling it up for a vote if enough political pressure was exerted about an issue.
Did these folks go about it in the right way or is that the most effective route? I don’t think so.
Scott,
You’re right. This is an issue that, all along, should have been taken up with the ZBA. If someone moves into my neighborhood and, say, covers their lawn in pink flamingos and puts out a sign that says, “Gogo’s dance parlor” or whatever, then that goes to the ZBA. I can’t understand why these neighbors have gone to the City Council except that perhaps they don’t know what the correct process is.
Now this fight will finally be where it belonged all along: the ZBA.
The neighbors did have several meetings with the persons in zoning who made the decision and asked that they reconsider it. After that, they went to their city Commissioner who recommended that they raise it at a City Council meeting.
I live on Sycamore, two blocks down. I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. They don’t cause any trouble. You’d never know what it was if someone didn’t tell you. What am I missing?
That corner has always been a rough patch.
Remember the orange cord and garden hose running from the duplex in front of that center to the (occupied) RV in the street for almost a year? Where was the uproar over that situation?
My take on “residential” is that it is occupied by residents. By it’s own rules, no one at this mental health facility can be considered a resident. The guy living in that camper was more of a resident.
There are two issues–one is the increased traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) through the neighborhood of a significant number of people. The facility houses six people for up to a week at a time and provides drop-in services on a self-referral basis to up to twenty people, I believe. So the facility has over twenty patients a day plus however staff going in and out of the facility daily. That’s quite a bit of traffic for a house in an otherwise residential neighborhood.
The other concern are the risks associated with bringing a mentally ill population into a residential neighborhood where children play and which pedestrians frequent. What I understand is that a small personal care home (which would be permitted under r-60 zoning) would screen residents for diagnoses and crimes which would not be appropriate for a residential neighborhood, but this facility does not screen anyone as that conflicts with the drop-in nature of the facility. My understanding is that a personal care home also is required to contact police if a resident goes missing for any length of time. This facility has no such requirement as that again would conflict with the drop-in nature of its mission. My understanding is that the facility describes its mission as providing an alternative to hospitalization. If so, then this population would run the gamut and could include persons with severe mental illness and those who have committed serious crimes.
So what’s the difference between churches and schools being in residential neighborhoods? The traffic they bring is much worse and who knows if schoolchildren’s parents, grandparents, etc are mentally ill or criminals? And churches, well, all sorts of people come in and around churches- from homeless looking for shelter to drug addicts to Ted Haggart. Seriously, what’s the diff? Schools, sure, they provide an obvious community benefit. Churches? Not so much for me personally unless I count the Toy Graveyard Park. In fact, I am deeply offended by and frightened of many churches….So explain the real difference here.
As I pointed out below, the main difference from a zoning persepective is that churches are specifically allowed in a residential zoning area under the code. As far as the reality perspective, I agree with you.
And that was really my point- the code may make these specific exemptions, but in reality, what’s the difference?
So just because certain entities are allowed in residential zoning which may be associated with problems or persons, then anything else associated with those problems should be allowed in–even if it violates current zoning laws? Why have any zoning then? You could fit anything under that loophole.
I think the current zoning laws were written to address the concerns which I noted above. I think they do a good job of balancing legitimate concerns about safety and impact on a neighborhood with the need for persons who need to live in group homes. Unfortunately, the city apparently does not want to enforce those zoning laws in this instance. Why not?
“There are two issues–one is the increased traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) through the neighborhood of a significant number of people. The facility houses six people for up to a week at a time and provides drop-in services on a self-referral basis to up to twenty people, I believe.”
First, the Peer Support and Wellness Center has three beds. Not six. This can be easily verified on the wellness center’s website.
Second, there are more than two issues. Other issues include: private property rights, arbitrary zoning enforcement (ie, done at only the behest of the neighbors), equal rights, federal laws, and much much more. The two you listed may be the two you care about, but the scope is much broader.
“So the facility has over twenty patients a day plus however staff going in and out of the facility daily.”
First, your characterization of the visitors to the facility as “patients” is disingenuous and specious. They are not patients. They are visitors to a house who participate in group activities — nothing more. Again, this could have been verified on the wellness center’s website.
Moreover, calling them “patients” begs the question. You have effectively decided the wellness center is a medical facility because it houses “patients” and that the visitors are “patients” because they are visiting a medical facility.
“That’s quite a bit of traffic for a house in an otherwise residential neighborhood.”
Sycamore is a busy road and has two large apartment complexes and it one of the main access roads to the hospital. There is also a daycare, and it is a thoroughfare from Ponce to N. Decatur. The Decatur Heights neighborhood is not an isolated subdivision, no matter how much the neighbors want to pretend it is.
Let me ask you this: what if the wellness center was moved beyond the neighborhood and the pedestrian traffic had to navigate the neighborhood streets to get there? Would you have a problem with that, too?
“The other concern are the risks associated with bringing a mentally ill population into a residential neighborhood where children play and which pedestrians frequent.”
This is plain ignorance of mental illness. You should educate yourself before making an asinine statement like this.
“What I understand is that a small personal care home (which would be permitted under r-60 zoning) would screen residents for diagnoses and crimes which would not be appropriate for a residential neighborhood, but this facility does not screen anyone as that conflicts with the drop-in nature of the facility.”
There is nothing in the zoning code requiring a family personal care home to screen their patients. You are making this up.
“My understanding is that a personal care home also is required to contact police if a resident goes missing for any length of time.”
Could you please provide a citation for this assertion?
“This facility has no such requirement as that again would conflict with the drop-in nature of its mission. My understanding is that the facility describes its mission as providing an alternative to hospitalization. If so, then this population would run the gamut and could include persons with severe mental illness and those who have committed serious crimes.”
This is insulting and ridiculous. Everyone, anywhere, runs the gamut and could include persons with severe mental illness and those who have committed serious crimes. The mentally ill are more likely to have crimes committed _against_ them. Please read up on this subject before you force a group out of your neighborhood based on your own assumptions and prejudices.
Here’s an exercise: delete “mentally ill” and insert “black” or “hispanic” or any other minority group. Doesn’t that make you sound like a bigot?
Now, realize this: the mentally ill are a minority group.
Now do you get it?
Bravo DeLesser!!
Standing ovation for DeLesser! Hooray!
Thank you DeLesser!!!
Bigot. Thanks.
For raising concerns about a facility which the City Manager herself said in a November conflicted with current zoning laws. And whether she herself now agrees with that, obviously there are grounds to question whether it fits within current zoning. But by raising those concerns, I’m a bigot?
I may be wrong, I may be misinformed, I may not have researched everything about this issue, but I don’t think I’ve said anything here which should label me as a bigot. I’m just telling people what my understanding is and what my concerns are, with the hope that if I am wrong, someone could correct me without insulting me.
But back to your point, it seems you’re suggesting that because the business or non-profit is for the benefit of a minority group, we can’t enforce zoning laws against them? If a black man started using his front yard to fix the cars of his friends, who were all black, the zoning laws couldn’t be enforced because this would be discrimination?
If the city selectively refuses to enforce its zoning laws against certain groups on the basis of race or disability, then won’t other groups who have the zoning laws applied against them be able to argue that this is discrimination? That zoning laws are applied differently to one group versus another based on their race or disability? Wouldn’t that be discrimination?
It’s odd that we hear nothing from the folks that utilize this facility. What does it do for them? Does it help integrate them with the rest of society? Aside from the lawyer talk and state funds, what’s it actually doing for people? Other than irritating the neighbors.
I believe the goal of the facility is to provide an alternative to hospitalization. Up to six residents are allowed to live in the facility for a week at a time and up to around 20 can drop by during the day for treatment and services. I think the goal is to help severely mentally ill persons stay out of the hospitals and in the community. I don’t think any neighbor has expressed anything but admiration for the goals of the facility, just concern that it’s not appropriately located.
Gibbets, you can read a lot about their perspectives in the executive reports: http://www.gmhcn.org/wellnesscenter/Evaluations/index.html
Sounds like they are doing good work–good community work for people who would otherwise go completely nuts in a hospital and take a bed away from someone who would really need it.
That said, has there been an increase in crime around the center? Rampant drug use, prostitution, assaults, general disruptions?
Maybe it’s the use of the slightly euphemistic term, mentally ill, in place of depressed or recovering addicts that has the neighbors out of whack. I don’t know.
Once again, it seems there is a shadow issue going on here–instead of hiding behind lot size, however, this one is obscured by zoning.
No, there has not been an increase in crime. Like I said, you wouldn’t even know what it was if no one told you. They don’t bother anyone.
Yes, they do great work and are great people. The issue is whether it’s appropriately placed and whether it unnecesarily creates a danger to residents. I have heard a few complaints of small transgressions (drug dealing) in the past. But the bigger concern is that if 20 persons daily are being drawn into the neighborhood with severe mental illness and they are not screened for diagnoses which could endanger themselves or others or for a history of crimes to others, then there is a danger that something worse could happen.
So, we know with certainty that no one else who lives in or frequents the neighborhood has any history of, or currently suffers from, mental illness?
Come, on smalltowngal ! How do you get from what I said to that? Are you implying that we don’t want any mentally ill people living in our neighborhood? That’s silly.
Just because drug users live in your neighborhood, is it OK if the city authorizes a crack house to do business next door to you? Sure it violates the law, but there are already drug users in the neighborhood! Is that the kind of law enforcement you want from the city of Decatur?
There are dangers associated with the severely mentally ill population. Obviously, not all of them, but some. The trick is making sure we protect the rights of the mentally ill population to live in the community and receive treatment at the same time as we maintain the safety of our families. Existing zoning laws do a good job of making that balance (small groups, screening, safeguards, etc). But the city, from what I can tell, is deciding not to enforce those requirements in this case. I’m not sure why. But maybe it’s because everytime a legitimate concern is brought up about this, people jump to conclusions and assume the neighborhood is ignorant and doesn’t want to live next to the mentally ill. I guess Decatur Heights is assumed to be the hicksville burbs of Decatur? Thanks !
But this is a nonprofit group home; I am still not sure how it’s violating the zoning ordinance. Technically, it is not a business.
I think most of us here are open to explanations, but I for one haven’t seen how this is definitively conflicting with the law. The crackhouse analogy is bogus, because crack, manufacturing crack, smoking crack and distributing crack are all illegal under explicit city, state and federal laws and ordinances. Personal care and group homes are not illegal and in fact encouraged under the ADA (see below). Scott, get the Decatur Municipal Ordinance book please!
Am I crazy or do I remember that not so long ago there was a commune somewhere in Oakhurst and a nonprofit halfway house on Cambridge or Feld?? Cranky??
You were focusing on the potential danger the clients of this facility allegedly represent, and I was trying to make the point that none of us really knows as much as we like to pretend we do, about our neighbors and what might be just around the corner. Anyhow, what has really gotten under my skin is the apparent lack of compassion for people who have the misfortune to suffer from mental instead of physical ailments. I’m not pointing specifically at you, Degreatur, by any means. But the fact that this discussion is even occurring indicates how ambivalent we are, collectively, about taking care of the mentally ill. Unless somebody is so drastically ill that they require hospitalization no matter what, the alternatives for meaningful help are extremely limited. For those without plentiful financial resources, the situation is magnitudes worse.
This facility offers short-term support for individuals who are struggling to stay well enough to avoid hospitalization. The whole premise seems to require a residential setting. To those who contend their only objection is that the Center is not appropriately located, I ask, in all earnestness, where do you think it should be located?
“But the city, from what I can tell, is deciding not to enforce those requirements in this case. I’m not sure why. But maybe it’s because everytime a legitimate concern is brought up about this, people jump to conclusions and assume the neighborhood is ignorant and doesn’t want to live next to the mentally ill.”
Come on.
In my experience, the city has a much cooler and rational head than all that. If I was forced to guess I’d say they’ve sided they came down the way they did because, A. the state said it qualified, B. it’s not a totally black and white issue regarding to the “drop-in visitors” and what they classify as, and C. city staff isn’t going to be the one to step out onto legally shaky ground (see Nellie’s post below that no one responded to) because some residents see it one way.
If the city is going to risk a equal access and rights lawsuit, better to let the ZBA be the one to make that call.
“Come, on smalltowngal ! How do you get from what I said to that? Are you implying that we don’t want any mentally ill people living in our neighborhood? That’s silly.”
Based on your argument above where you said, “this population would run the gamut and could include persons with severe mental illness and those who have committed serious crimes,” I think this is a fair inference.
“Just because drug users live in your neighborhood, is it OK if the city authorizes a crack house to do business next door to you? Sure it violates the law, but there are already drug users in the neighborhood! Is that the kind of law enforcement you want from the city of Decatur?”
This analogy is invalid. Using drugs is a crime. Being mentally ill is not a crime. See the difference? This, again, betrays that you conflate mental illness with criminality, and that, again, betrays your ignorance on the subject.
“There are dangers associated with the severely mentally ill population. Obviously, not all of them, but some. The trick is making sure we protect the rights of the mentally ill population to live in the community and receive treatment at the same time as we maintain the safety of our families.”
That is the trick, and that’s what the city is doing. You seem to have a problem because they are doing it differently than you want them to. Given your assumptions about the mentally ill, I can see why you would want to err on the side of exclusion. But here’s the catch: your assumptions are wrong.
“Existing zoning laws do a good job of making that balance (small groups, screening, safeguards, etc).”
Please provide a citation to the zoning code requiring family personal care homes to screen individuals and what safeguards it enumerates.
“But the city, from what I can tell, is deciding not to enforce those requirements in this case. I’m not sure why. But maybe it’s because everytime a legitimate concern is brought up about this, people jump to conclusions and assume the neighborhood is ignorant and doesn’t want to live next to the mentally ill.”
You are providing adequate grounds for that assumption. The city has decided not to enforce the requirements of the zoning ordinance because it has decided that the ordinance is not being violated. This mantra is akin to asking why the city is not giving out speeding tickets to those who are not speeding.
All true–for patients that belong in hospital. This facility is for patients that are not that bad off and just need a little help for a short time.
Zoning laws are there for a reason. If special exceptions are allowed without regard to the rules, then who is to stop the next violation and the next and the next?
Taking out the mental health component, this is a business conducting business in a residential area.
First, the City determined that no zoning law is being violated. Even if it were, variances exist for a reason, too.
You can’t “take the mental health component out of it” because (based on my reading of the website, including the annual Evaluation Reports) the nature of the support provided by the Center depends on the residential setting. This place helps people who are in trouble, and without it they have nowhere else to turn. How about let’s take the bureaucratic mindset out of it, and remember that living in a community requires being flexible and willing to bend a little when there’s a good reason. So far, I see lots of good reasons to do that in this case, and have heard no specific reasons not to.
Well, it’s not entirely true that the city has not found that no zoning laws are being violated, and this is why I’m so confused. When Peggy Merriss first looked at this issue, she issued a preliminary report that found that the day-use aspect of the Center violated R-60 zoning requirements and the Center was required to cease that portion of its operations in December. So, I don’t know if Peggy Merriss’ current decision only speaks to the residential portion of the Center’s work or if she’s changed her mind and decided that the day use can continue. Anyone know?
After reading through the various supporting documentation sent out with Peggy’s memo, I think the reason for the change is clear:
The day time operations are,legally speaking, akin to having visitors at one’s house, and to curtail them would be discriminatory.
My recollection was not that the commission said the facility had to shut down day time operations but that it said the facility had to respond to its requests for documentation before further decision could be reached. The impression I was left with is that, if the center did not respond, or did not make an adequate legal argument, then the daytime use would have to cease.
“Well, it’s not entirely true that the city has not found that no zoning laws are being violated, and this is why I’m so confused.”
This is a very tricky subject so I can understand how you might lose your way. Let me first offer some tips:
(1) Before you make an assertion, research it. this includes things like Peggy Merriss’ statement, the actual zoning code, and literature on mental illness.
(2) If you are confused, do not say something is “not entirely true.” If you are confused, ask questions. You will learn what you don’t know, and then you can meaningfully contribute to the conversation instead of spreading misinformation about, say, the zoning ordinance.
Now, as for the substance of your comment, you wrote:
“When Peggy Merriss first looked at this issue, she issued a preliminary report that found that the day-use aspect of the Center violated R-60 zoning requirements and the Center was required to cease that portion of its operations in December.”
As you note, it was a preliminary report. I guess you’re not familiar with governmental decision making or legal research, but preliminary reports on the legality of a particular action or decision are issued all the time — to judges, administrative employees, legislatures. They are issued as a starting ground, to determine what else is needed in order to make the decision. Peggy Merriss essentially shifted the burden of proof to the wellness center to show that the daytime operations were legal. The wellness center did so, and so Peggy’s final decision was modified. This is how good decision making is done: information is gathered, processed, and previous decisions revisted.
Beyond that, though, since you’re so concerned with previous decisions by the city, you should be well aware that the city previously declared the operations at the wellness center to be legal under the zoning ordinance. If Peggy’s preliminary report is relevant, so too is this previous decision, and you should cite it just as you do anything else.
“So, I don’t know if Peggy Merriss’ current decision only speaks to the residential portion of the Center’s work or if she’s changed her mind and decided that the day use can continue. Anyone know?”
If you bothered to read the document issued by Peggy, you would know the answer to this question.
Look, you are obviously a sharp and well-spoken individual. But you are on this website saying things that aren’t true and ignoring any evidence that does not support your own conclusion. Please step back from this situation and see the big picture involved here. Ask yourself whether your own discomfort is worth wasting the State’s money and potentially endangering the wellness center’s mission.
I imagine that you, like the rest of us, feel that there is much government waste and inefficiency. The actions taken by the neighborhood are an excellent case study: the state funds an organization to provide services, the organization provides them, and the city approves the organization’s presence. So far so good, right? Now the waste: the neighbors complain, and suddenly the time of the city’s staff is wasted writing needless memos, individuals working for the State are replying to requests for information, lawyers become involved, potential for an appeal to the superior court looms. Those who are still complaining and dragging this out are wasting valuable and scarce resources.
And to what end? To deprive someone of their vested property rights. Those rights are fundamental to our country (“life, liberty, and property,” you know?) and cannot be denied without a thorough respect for due process. Time and money are being wasted in order to exclude a use of a property that is not liked by some. Good bureaucracy, brought about by the neighbors of Decatur Heights.
If there are risks associated with the wellness center, those are risks that should be handled on a case by case basis. You can, for example, call the police if you see suspected illegal activity. It’s as simple as that.
By that gauge, however, a church is a business and would be restricted from a residential neighborhood, or a school. The kind of business matters as much in zoning as the fact that it is a business. If the issue was so cut and dried, there would be no difference in locating a bar or strip club or locating a daycare or grocery.
I think this is a great point.
Churces and schools are specifically allowed in residential zoning districts under the code.
I wish someone would explain to me what, specifically, the opposed residents’ objections are with respect to this facility. Is it a NIMBY issue (as many supporters seem to believe)? Is it a perceived safety issue (since the Center ostensibly doesn’t keep a log of its drop-in patients/visitors)? Is it some of both? I can’t really tell, just from the available information. The specific zoning issues aside, If it’s a matter of the Center being “inappropriate” for the neighborhood, I’m not exactly sure why the opposed residents believe this. Would their concerns be abated if the Center applied for a variance, and/or began keeping detailed records of its drop-ins? Or would they still want the Center to go elsewhere?
I can understand that residents would have some concerns, and I don’t believe compassion for the mentally ill is mutually exclusive from being cautious. At any rate, as someone with family members who suffer from mental illness, my wish would be that the Center and its patients/visitors would be looked at first with compassion, rather than a visceral uneasiness. That being said, I don’t live in Decatur Heights, so it would be arrogant of me to tell the folks who do live there that they don’t have the right to look into it.
No one who is leading the charge has been able to articulate an issue with the wellness center other than that it violates the zoning ordinance and the city had not properly investigated.
Then the city properly investigated and decided, again, that it did not violate the zoning ordinance.
Now they are stomping their feet and threatening to take it to the next level: the ZBA (which, as has been stated, is where this should have gone all along).
What the aggrieved neighbors fail to realize is that their own headstrong attitude has hurt their cause more then helped it. It has made them all a menace to city employees, and shot down any chance at creating a cooperative environment with the wellness center.
It’s sad that a house that helps people and that has caused not a single incident in the neighborhood has become the focus of their collective ire. Seems that their professed respect for zoning laws has changed tenor to a simple childish desire to be right.
Pathetic.
As a planner myself, I hate to see zoning laws used as the basis for excluding any one group from a neighborhood. This was, in fact, why zoning was invented and what it was first used for. Sadly, this still happens on a regular basis. If the residents of Decatur Heights have a set of problems with the facility, then those problems need to be addressed in a more direct way such as mediation, and not under the cover of appropriate R-60 debates.
Zoning, for all of its problems, can be used to help build integrated, economically sustainable communities. The problem is when people get obsessed about the type, height, width, depth, style, color-coordination, set-back, cultural meaning, etc. of curb-side yard plantings, for example. Communities are not sub-divisions, and people need to realize that the rules in place are only a guide. No bureaucrat (myself included) is smart enough to develop a set of rules that fit the needs of all people at all times. Exceptions to the rules are part of the process.
I guess I should clarify that I’m not a planner for Decatur, or Dekalb, but I do live in the city. Don’t want to get my fellow bureaucrats in trouble for no reason!
Just a bit of irony:
Atlanta Legal Aid Society up the road on Sycamore Street won case in the United States Supreme Court 10 years ago that confirmed that the ADA guarantees that disabled people like these residents have the right to live outside of an institution in appropriate community settings.
If I lived in Decatur Heights and was worried about this facility, I might check with an attorney who specializes in civil rights and the application of the federal ADA & disabilities to make sure any type of action they take is not in conflict with the ADA and current case law . Lawyers who are not experts in federal disability law 9such as real estate and zoning lawyers) and many, many municipal bureaucrats – including zoning boards – often don’t have a clue about federal law governing law equal access – remember, much of this goes back to the legal principles that abolished separate but equal segregation laws. I’d tread carefully. This may not be just about zoning but about equal access and the rights of the disabled to live in the community in an appropriate setting.
Thank you for pointing this out Nelliebelle1197!!!
Why not just rezone Sycamore as commercial/institutional and be done with it?
It’ll kill two birds with one stone. The Center can stay where it is and we can break up the landlord monopoly that Camille mentioned in the Kaleidoscope thread!
I bet I can get the school-obsessed contingent on my side just by mentioning those delicious commercial “we don’t send kids into the school system” taxes.
It’s not just Win-Win….it’s win-win-win!
P.S. This is just a thought experiment.
I live in this community. While I do care for the home being there, if it is within its legal rights to stay the way it is functioning, then so be it. If they are functioning at a different capacity then what the zoning rules state, then either the rules need to be altered, or the use of the home needs to be altered. I did not notice it much until the day use began, and now I do. I do think having this type of facility in a neighborhood with many children is not the very best idea. Certainly there are other more commercial and just as easily accessible properties where this facility can be housed. Again, if it is being used legally for the purpose it is being used, then it should be allowed to stay, regardless of how I feel.