Decatur Heights Neighbors Rally to Oppose 444 Sycamore
Decatur Metro | January 23, 2010Dave Kell reports that he and some of his neighbors will meet tomorrow at 4pm to discuss next steps in bringing a case against the Peer Support and Wellness Center at 444 Sycamore Drive.
Soren Christainsen has invited any interested parties to a meeting at 4 p.m. Sunday at his home at 631 Sycamore Drive [between the stop signs at Pinehurst and Fairview] to discuss developments regarding 444 Sycamore Drive and to develop a path forward.
The City Manager has notified the Commissioners of the Staff’s determination that the operations at 444 Sycamore fall within R60 residential zoning. [See a 1/19/2010 inDECATUR post for details.] Some Decatur Heights residents don’t agree. A survey has not yet been taken, the percentage cannot be reported.
An email sent out to neighborhood residents by Mr. Christiansen, featured on Dave’s site, goes into some detail as to their specific grievance.
“The city’s position is that the center is legal and that 25 walk-ins a day are “visitors” and not persons receiving therapy. We disagree. The state contract makes it clear that if the center does not average at least 12 walk-ins a day that they will lose their funding. We believe this is a business.”
Latest from Decaturish
This is getting juicy. I’ll be standing on my front porch looking for them with their torches and lynching materials around 4:30.
Very funny (but painfully true)
They should be ashamed. Maybe they should volunteer to HELP these people, instead of opposing them. They may find themselves in the line for assistance some day!
Have you heard? The people aren’t the problem–the neighbors are only concerned with zoning violations and that is all.
Yup, they are _passionate_ about zoning. That’s why they all get so up in arms when they get in trouble for their fence and whatever else violations
Apparently, there’s no violation if you can get certain officials to look the other way.
And doing that is a lot easier in DH than Great Lakes.
If you need me I’ll be converting my porch into an autobody shop.
Apparently there’s no violation.
Period.
What’s with this constant insane and paranoid insistence that the peer support and wellness center has somehow bribed or whatever public officials? That they’ve convinced the commission to “look the other way”?
Yes, because we all know that the pockets of nonprofit organizations run deep. They’re richer than the mafia. And those mentally ill people are so powerful and privileged in our society. I know I live in constant fear of nonprofits, mentally ill, and their millions of dollars.
When someone has to resort to conspiracy theories, it’s generally a good indication that they’ve run out of intelligent arguments.
Can you point to any comments that have accused someone of bribery? None of mine ever went there.
I thought about responding as a different name because apprently there’s another “decatur resident” somewhere on this board who opposes the center, but wanted to make sure you knew it was me replying, Ridgelandistan.
You’re right, you didn’t imply bribery.This was more a blanket statement against the more vocal members of the DHNA who at least on Dave Kell’s blog (I’ll find a link later if you want one, but I’m kind of weary of the whole thing) were implying the wellness center somehow was manipulating/bribing public officials.There were also many cries of “follow the money!” at the community meeting in October.
Sorry to lump you in with the more insane members of the group.
You know, Oakhurst Baptist Church houses homeless men with addiction issues on premise. The addicts actually live next to the church in a house and actually walk down East Lake to get to the church! They serve up to 10 people at a time. Is the church zoned for that? This can’t be a personal care home because these are addicts, not disabled people. It sounds like a business on a residential stretch of East Lake to me. After all, churches get grants and donations. Doesn’t that make it a business?
Seriously, what’s the difference? I bet the church had to get some sort of variance to operate a group home- not the same thing as a personal care home, BTW. I would also bet the church has done this for years, considering the huge spirit of social justice that is the back bone of this little church (someone who knows more about this work of the church, please fill in the blanks).
And by the way, a nonprofit is not exactly the same thing as an autobody shop.
The difference, according to many opinions, is that people with mental illness are more likely to be sex offenders, and in a non-residential situation, they are not required by law to register as such. The fact that the Wellness Center is not a church and is not operated by professionals, increases the likelihood of sexual (and other) crimes in the neighborhood, which, with proper screening by professionals, would otherwise be preventable.
“people with mental illness are more likely to be sex offenders”
Wait, what? Really, that’s what people are saying? That’s even worse than the insinuation that public officials were bribed. Yeesh.
Not operated by professionals? How do you know? The counselors are provide the peer support. Who’s paying the bills, writing the grants, applying for the 501c3, doing evaluation and grant reporting?
The center at Oakhurst is run by church through community volunteers; the men attend NA meetings at the church and live at house next door. I am glad they are there and I hope they all get well. And to quote the website. “The executive director and the graduates of the program serve as the staff and are all recovering addicts with 5 to 30 years clean and sober.” In other words, the shelter is run by, get this, peers.
So drug and alcohol abusers are less likely to commit sex crimes than people with mental illness? Show me those stats, please. “Many opinions” is not a statement of fact. It’s a statement of your opinion.
If you’re going to make such an inflammatory assertion, you should probably cite some evidence.
Dave Kell tried to “prove” that the mentally ill were more dangerous than others a few months back. What he found was that everyone disagrees on this issue-nothing more. So for you to state it as fact is extraordinarily disingenous.
Oh trust me, this is not my opinion at all. Far from it. But I am keenly aware of the opinion of the 444 Sycamore neighbors, and it is nothing but pure ignorance and discrimination. In fact people with mental illness are less likely to commit crimes than the average population and are MORE likely to be victims of crime. BTW, last time I checked, discrimination is a crime.
I’m not offering an opinion on the 444 Sycamore issue, but I want to clarify something.
Discrimination is not a crime. In many circumstances (particularly in employment) it gives rise to civil damages, but it is not a crime in and of itself. Now, if an incident occurs in a jurisdiction that has enacted hate crime legislation, and discrimination is combined with assault of some other criminal act.. then you have a crime. However, the discrimination in and of itself is not criminal.
shame on you. stop spreading ignorance.
“….And by the way, a nonprofit is not exactly the same thing as an autobody shop.”
And by the way, an anonomous walk-in clinic is not exactly the same thing as a residenence.
lets show a little tolerance the peer support and wellness center is not hurting anyone
Instead of extrapolating on each others motives, I’d appreciate it if someone out there could reconcile the issue brought up by Mr. Christiansen above…
“The city’s position is that the center is legal and that 25 walk-ins a day are “visitors” and not persons receiving therapy. We disagree. The state contract makes it clear that if the center does not average at least 12 walk-ins a day that they will lose their funding. We believe this is a business.”
If walk-ins are necessary to keep the contract with the state, can the walk-ins be considered “visitors”?
I haven’t seen the contract, but having some experience with healthcare law back in the day while I was in private practice, if this place has a contract with the State to provide services (mental health or otherwise), and if there’s a minimum number of persons for whom it must provide those services in order to receive its funding, the argument that it’s simply a personal care home that hosts daily “wellness activities” for its clients’ “visitors” doesn’t really hold up. I don’t know of any guidelines in state laws that regulate funding that specify a minimum number of “visitors”– only clients who are receiving services that are regulated by the Department. The City’s mistake here is that it’s apparently trying to make the Center fit into a category that it doesn’t. If what the City really wants is to be able to allow the Center to remain as it is, the simplest solution would be for the Center to apply for a variance, and for the City to grant it (instead of pussyfooting around the zoning issue, making no one happy). That way, there would be no question that the Center is legally operating, it can continue performing its mission, and the residents will have to find some other grounds for their objections. I would hope that, since the Center has apparently been operating for some time without incident, the residents would calm down a bit and see if they can’t find it in their hearts to give these poor people a break. Either way, I think the biggest failure here is the City’s, for not directing the Center to get a variance from the ZBA to begin with (because it should have been obvious that the Center’s operations didn’t clearly fall within the current guidelines for either a personal care home or a mental health clinic), and then not taking responsibility for this failure.
“I haven’t seen the contract, but having some experience with healthcare law back in the day while I was in private practice, if this place has a contract with the State to provide services (mental health or otherwise), and if there’s a minimum number of persons for whom it must provide those services in order to receive its funding, the argument that it’s simply a personal care home that hosts daily “wellness activities” for its clients’ “visitors” doesn’t really hold up.”
I don’t see why it wouldn’t hold up. The zoning ordinance regulates the use a property, it does not regulate contracts. Whether people are visiting the property count toward contingent state funding or whether they visit the property because they have friends there does not change the nature of the use of the property, and zoning laws are, fundamentally, land use regulations.
Let’s say the funding from the state disappeared, would you argue that those people going to the wellness center could then qualify as visitors? Or let’s say the wellness center modifies the contract to remove the attendance requirement? What then? I think bringing the terms contract with the state into this leads to some nonsensical results.
“I don’t know of any guidelines in state laws that regulate funding that specify a minimum number of “visitors”– only clients who are receiving services that are regulated by the Department.”
I think in order to say anything regarding this, you’d have to see the actual contract between the center and the state. But as I said above, I really don’t think it matters one way or the other.
“The City’s mistake here is that it’s apparently trying to make the Center fit into a category that it doesn’t. If what the City really wants is to be able to allow the Center to remain as it is, the simplest solution would be for the Center to apply for a variance, and for the City to grant it (instead of pussyfooting around the zoning issue, making no one happy).”
I agree with this, but if you read the zoning ordinance the use of this proeprty does closely comport with the definition of personal care home. In this case the city has the power to interpret its own code, and has done so consistently since the center moved in. There hasn’t been any “pussyfooting” around the zoning issue; the city has consistently decided that the center was operating properly in the zoning district.
Also, if you think granting a variance would make Christiansen and posse happy, I have sad news for you.
“That way, there would be no question that the Center is legally operating, it can continue performing its mission, and the residents will have to find some other grounds for their objections.”
As of right now there is no question that it is legally operating, and given the abuse of discretion standard used by the superior court in reviewing a zoning decision, I don’t think there ever will be a question.
“I would hope that, since the Center has apparently been operating for some time without incident, the residents would calm down a bit and see if they can’t find it in their hearts to give these poor people a break.”
Wouldn’t we all!
“Either way, I think the biggest failure here is the City’s, for not directing the Center to get a variance from the ZBA to begin with (because it should have been obvious that the Center’s operations didn’t clearly fall within the current guidelines for either a personal care home or a mental health clinic), and then not taking responsibility for this failure.”
Again, I agree that the City has not handled this in the most appropriate manner, but I think its current decision withstands legal analysis.
Since we’re really not disagreeing on anything here, let me just address this point: while it;s true that zoming laws don’t regulate contracts, I think it’s a fundamental point here that the contract with the State does, in fact, regulate the types of services offered at the Center, and thus, defines how this property is being used. There’s where your zoning ordinances come into play. What matters is what actually goes on (i.e., the actual use), not what the Center calls itself. If the drop-ins are in fact receiving mental health services of any kind from the Center, then they really cannot be termed mere visitors– they are, in fact, clients. Of course, if it turns out that the drop-ins are actually merely visitors of the three in-patients, then you might be correct that the argument holds up. And while you’re correct that the City indeed has the authority to interpret its own code, if the State contract indicates that mental health services are being provided at the Center, the City would have no legal grounds to tell the State that the City’s, rather than the State’s, definitions apply. So, as it stands, the DH residents actually do have a colorable argument in their favor. And in my opinion, this is where the City has dropped the ball– it cannot ride the “is it or isn’t it?” fence forever, so if it wants to keep allowing the Center to operate, then it should either grant the variance and be done with it, or rewrite the ordinances to more clearly define what’s allowable there. The way things are now, it can continue to bunt responsibility off until someone else forces the issue to a head, and then step back without having really ever entered the fray.
(I don’t know if replying piece by piece is annoying or not. Hopefully not.)
“Since we’re really not disagreeing on anything here, let me just address this point: while it;s true that zoming laws don’t regulate contracts, I think it’s a fundamental point here that the contract with the State does, in fact, regulate the types of services offered at the Center, and thus, defines how this property is being used. There’s where your zoning ordinances come into play. What matters is what actually goes on (i.e., the actual use), not what the Center calls itself. If the drop-ins are in fact receiving mental health services of any kind from the Center, then they really cannot be termed mere visitors– they are, in fact, clients.”
This is a good point, and I was pretty loose with how I said the contract was completely irrelevant. But as far as I know, the way the center is run reflects the contract, the “patrons” of the establishment are not receiving mental health services of any kind. It does not fill in an ambiguity that would be useful in determining how to apply the zoning code and, if anything, it only supports the center’s analogy that these are guests to a house.
“Of course, if it turns out that the drop-ins are actually merely visitors of the three in-patients, then you might be correct that the argument holds up. ”
While they aren’t visitors of the three patients, they certainly are not going there to receive medical services. They have a creative writing workshop, for example. These are, if anything, community activities Just like the city can’t regulate your guests (no matter who they are visting and even if they are attending group activity sessions), it cannot regulate a personal care home guests absent applicable language in the code.
“And while you’re correct that the City indeed has the authority to interpret its own code, if the State contract indicates that mental health services are being provided at the Center, the City would have no legal grounds to tell the State that the City’s, rather than the State’s, definitions apply.”
The City doesn’t need legal grounds to tell the State anything; it’s not telling the State aything. The State wouldn’t care whether the City called it a brothel so long as the state allowed it to operate without wasting the State’s budget. (Those from the State agencies who fund places like this want them to succeed, not fail or wither.)
Like I said above, if the contract made it clear that these were mental health services then it would be proper for the city to use that information. Other than that, I fail to see any other relevance to the State’s involvement here. Am I missing something?
“So, as it stands, the DH residents actually do have a colorable argument in their favor.”
I do not see a colorable argument here unless they have a time machine. Sure, the city could, if it were hostile to mental health homes, say it didn’t qualify as a personal care home. If they did that from the start, they could have nipped it in the bud and the center would have looked for another location to lease and the center probably not having many grounds for an appeal (aside from applying for a variance, but that follows the same loop).
But instead, the City decided it qualified as a personal care home and allowed it to operate for two years without incident. Then, the City told the neighbors that it was a personal care home. Then the City issued a written decision that it could continue to operate. Now, it is more than a zoning issue; it involves the Fair Housing Act –something barely even touched upon here. It also involves the community, the State’s money, and governmental waste due to the investigation.
Now in order to show the city abused its discretion, you’d have to take what was once a grey area, and in the intervening years became a firm decision by the city, and say that when they were in the grey area they abused their discretion in interpreting the zoning ordinance.
There are incredible hurdles to getting this overturned, especially if the ZBA rules against them. On the other hand, if the ZBA rules for them, I think there will be a successul appeal on the part of the wellness center.
“And in my opinion, this is where the City has dropped the ball– it cannot ride the “is it or isn’t it?” fence forever, so if it wants to keep allowing the Center to operate, then it should either grant the variance and be done with it, or rewrite the ordinances to more clearly define what’s allowable there.”
This City did drop the ball in hadling this, and this argument cuts in a lot of different directions. For example, “I agree completely, and this further shows that the City didn’t think it was such a grey area — they thought it was so obviously a family person care home that it didn’t need a variance!” or “The City is incompetent and snuck in the center under our noses so they wouldn’t have to have a public hearing! It’s a conspiracy!” Once something you do can be used to support any argument against you, you’ve probably done the wrong thing. hah.
“The way things are now, it can continue to bunt responsibility off until someone else forces the issue to a head, and then step back without having really ever entered the fray.”
They’re going to enter the fray when they have to pay an attorney to defend an appeal of its final decision to the superior court if they don’t fix this and make both sides happy. The complete lack of arbitration and problem solving on the part of the City has been reprehensible. Our government is supposed to solve problems, not let sides get entrenched and tempers flairing. This, imo, is the biggest fault of our Mayor and the Commissioners in this entire debacle.
delesser- I think it goes beyond Fair Housing and into ADA/equal access issues. What do you think? I may be overreaching with that…
Gads, I feel like I’m being devil’s advocate for an argument whose side I don’t take! OK, yes, delesser, you’re missing something, but as this issue seems to be stumping even the people whose job it is to enforce the Code, it’s understandable. I’m sorry if I’m not being clear. The relevancy of the State’s definition of what services are being provided at the Center is precisely whether the services being provided and the number of persons to whom they’re required to be provided would in fact cause them to fall outside the purview of the ordinance. If the State’s contract defines the services being provided as “mental health services”, then that’s what the law will define them as, and the City cannot unilaterally decide that the services the State calls mental health services are, say, “community activities”. It’s not about whether the State cares what they’re called, it’s a matter of using the actual language of the contract to decide how the Center is actually being used. Regardless of whether the contract calls them “mental health” or “mental wellness” services, they aren’t really “community activities” if they’re designated to be provided to persons with mental health needs. Presumably, the activities being offered aren’t merely to the community at large, but to a specific segment of the population (i.e., as part of a therapeutic program for persons with mental illness). Depending on what the contract actually says & how it defines the services provided there, that’s where the DH residents are going to find their argument hinges. Like other posters here, I too hate to see the law used to exclude people in need– but to assume that this issue is as cut and dried as you seem to believe would be a mistake. A big one.
What I’d REALLY like to see is that contract!
I knew my dear rumandlimes was going to be letting out deep sighs at having to play devil’s advocate!
¡Que lista, Cuba, que lista!
“The city’s position is that the center is legal and that 25 walk-ins a day are “visitors” and not persons receiving therapy. We disagree. The state contract makes it clear that if the center does not average at least 12 walk-ins a day that they will lose their funding. We believe this is a business.”
I’d rather have Mr Christiansen point to a particular violation of the zoning code instead of hurling generalizations and uninformed opinions. There was extensive documentation submitted by the wellness center addressing these points, and there is no need to repeat it here. If you have specific questions after reviewing that documentation I’m sure someone here will be happy to help you understand.
(It is also amusing to note that that the neighbors simultaneously assert that the facility is not staffed by professionals while also insisting that professional services are being rendered there. Which is it, guys?)
“If walk-ins are necessary to keep the contract with the state, can the walk-ins be considered “visitors”?”
Yes. It doesn’t matter what’s necessary to keep the contract with the state. What matters is how the wellness center’s operations comport with the zoning ordinance. If the ordinance said “no family personal care home may receive contingent funding from the State” then this would be relevant, but the zoning ordinance doesn’t say that.
This entire farce has revealed what happens when those who do not understand the legal system attempt to proceed within without educating themselves about it. Things are conflated, defintions applied across boundaries, and connections are made which, in reality, do not exist. The contract with the state has nothing to do with the zoning ordinance here.
I heart Delesser.
We all do
Thank you, DM, for asking if there was actually a valid point here. I think people jump to the conclusion that there is discrimination here, but I think anyone would be concerned about a business setting up shop in their neighborhood at a certain point. This place has up to 25 drop-ins a day, but what if it were 50, or 100 or 200? At some point, I think everyone on this board would say that’s too much, isn’t there a zoning ordinance about this?
For what it’s worth, Peggy Merris’s original opinion from November found that this day-use conflicted with current zoning and recommended that the center cease its day-use operation. I don’t know why the city never followed through and why she changed her mind. Below is from her original opinion:
“Family personal care homes are allowed to operate in R-60 zoning districts. However, family personal care homes are not meant to be residential treatment facilities offering services to persons who are not residents of the home.
The contract indicates that services will be available on a walk-in basis. This seems to most closely resemble a clinic operation which is allowed as a permitted conditional use in a professional and office zoning district but is restricted to all commercial zoning districts.
Conclusion:
It does not appear that walk-in services as described in the contract are allowed in any residential zoning district.
Future Action:
The Georgia Mental Health Consumer Network, Inc. will have until November 25, 2009 to provide to the Planning Director any documentation that would indicate that services are primarily provided for the residents of the facility; or,
The Georgia Mental Health Consumer Network, Inc. will have until December 31, 2009, to modify their program to eliminate walk-in services.”
That report is from the city of decatur’s website here: http://www.decaturga.com/client_resources/cicomagendas/2009/peer%20support%20&%20recovery%20respite%20center%20report.pdf
Does anyone have the zoning code handy?
http://library6.municode.com/default-test/home.htm?infobase=12110&doc_action=whatsnew
Folks, this is a zoning issue. For the record there is a drug addiction facility and a mental health addiction facility within a few hundred yards of my home (and most homes of Decatur Heights). I have never complained about those facilities and what they do because they are properly zoned for that. This facility at 444 Sycamore Drive, with 25 walk-ins a day simply does not fit the code for our neighborhood. To say you disagree is one thing. Being offensive is quite another. I won’t be posting again as I don’t have much of a desire for an anonymous platform such as this. We feel strongly about our case and will continue to pursue what we believe is a just cause.
With apologies, Mr. Christiansen, I’m not sure where we’ve been abusive. If I’ve offended you or the residents at issue, that has not been my intention (I am not presuming to speak for anyone but myself). I wish you would reconsider posting here, because even though many of the commenters may disagree with you, I think we’d all appreciate being able to understand your perspective better. I know I would. There have been some pretty inflammatory remarks made by some of the DH residents (e.g., mentally ill people are more prone to crime, especially sexual crimes, etc.), so it would help to have a reasoned explanation offered from your side as to why you all believe this Center is a nuisance.
I couldn’t reply to the above post. This is to cubalibre.
It’s for the greater good, my friend, for someone to play devil’s advocate.
“The relevancy of the State’s definition of what services are being provided at the Center is precisely whether the services being provided and the number of persons to whom they’re required to be provided would in fact cause them to fall outside the purview of the ordinance.”
No, I get that. Though I haven’t seen the contract myself, I am under the impression that it defines the daily activities as nothing more than wellness activities, and I know for sure that they are not defined as anything that would constitute providing treatment or services.
I still think, then, that the more determinative question would be the actual behavior occuring on the property. The court’s job would be to determine whether the that behavior comports with the zoning ordinance. When defining that behvaior, the best place to look would be to the contract. In that regard, I agree completely. But if the contract’s language is not determinative (ie, if there is ambiguity between the contractual language and the zoning language) on the issue, the court would have no choice but to look at the reality of the day-to-day operations at the wellness center and see how those match with the zoning ordinance.
We agree about the rest.
With regard to my confidence, if a superior court were to review all of this de novo I would not be so confident (though I am also trying to offset the hype of the neighbors). But the superior court reviews the decision of the city under an abuse of discretion standard (I believe this typically is synonymous with “any evidence”). That contract would have to be VERY specific about these services being offered for the treatment of mental illness, such that there was no reasonable interpretation that would comport with the zoning ordinance. (Assuming, of course, that the neighbors are the appellates.) Regardless, any advocacy would be no less staunch whether it was a 50/50, 75/25, or 99/1 case.
Also, I am pretty sure you or I could go there and participate in the creative writing group tomorrow.
Of course, you’re completely right that we won’t know anything under we see the contract.
Oh — and another reason for my confidence is the part of the zoning code that allows for similar uses to the surrounding community. Take a look at it; it’s in the papers the wellness center submitted to the city.
Also, nelliebelle1197, I honestly have no idea about the ADA. Seems like it’d only be an equal access issue if the lessor were trying to exclude them, or something similar. I don’t know much about it though. What say you?
If anyone wants to email and discuss feel free. I set a new one up:
Re: ADA-I posted this in the other Sycamore Heights thread and I am adding this link to a review of the decision:
http://www.bazelon.org/incourt/docket/olmstead.html
Just a bit of irony:
Atlanta Legal Aid Society up the road on Sycamore Street won a 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 (such 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.
http://www.bazelon.org/incourt/docket/olmstead.html
I think we could continue this discussion ad infinitum, delesser! At any rate, I’m enjoying the academic exercise, if not the subject itself. A couple of points: as you know, the Court reviewing this appeal will have to make the distinction between the legal issues and the factual issues– if it comes down as an appeal of the legal issue, then it’s going to be de novo; if it comes down as an appeal of the factual issues, then it would be an abuse of discretion standard. At this point, there’s no certainty of which of those standards of review will be used, since there’s been no appeal filed (yet). You’re right that the contract’s terms would have to be very specific about the services to be provided/the number and classification of the permissible recipients, but again, it would come down to what the State’s interpretation of the definition of the terms is– if the State classifies those services as services intended to be rpovided to those with mental health disabilities, then it doesn’t matter. The only thing that will matter then is whether the City can find some way to show that those services as defined were permitted under the zoning for that particular neighborhood, and if not, whether a proper variance was (or could be) granted. As for who can go and participate/partake of the services or activities being offered, I’m not so certain that you or I could just go and avail ourselves of them without meeting some sort of threshold– you may be operating from more information than I have, but I’d be surprised if that was actually the case. I say this because given the State’s current budget woes, it wouldn’t make much sense for DHR to subsidize such services for anyone across the board– but you seem to have more of the working facts than I do, so I could be mistaken. Even so, if the Center is in fact only providing community service activities, then it is still subject to the residential zoning ordinances. It’s my understanding that this is the factual rock and hard place between which the City currently finds itself.
Nellie– as the ADA Coordinator for my agency, let me take a stab. Understand that I usually approach the interpretation of what a reasonable accommodation is from our standpoint in relation to our employees, rather than a municipal government to members of the community. But from what I know of the ADA, I don’t think the clients of the Center would have the standing to bring an ADA claim against the City if it found that in fact, the ordinances (or a variance therefrom) would not permit the Center’s operations. If there are laws that would preclude such operations, then the City, in upholding or following its own laws, could not be found to be acting unreasonably in refusing to make an accommodation contrary to those laws. The only way to get around that would be to challenge the ordinances themselves as unconstitutionally discriminatory, and that would be an almost impossible standard to meet (as such laws are given the prima facie presumption of validity). Does that make sense? I’m sorry to lapse into legalspeak– sometimes I can’t help myself…
cubalibre – I’ve also enjoyed this, but I can’t manage another post! Please feel free to email me at the above address (I’ll respond from my real one) if you feel like discussing anymore. I’d love to get more input from you this, since you undoubtedly are more experienced with this stuff than me.
Cuba- I am actually thinking specifically of the state obligation to provide integrated+ community services under the SCOTUS Olmstead decision, specifically related to disabilities. Like I said, I may be overreaching on that!
25 walk-ins a day does not a business make. Just ask my neighborhood pot guy.
I take it that the main grievance is that DH residents were denied due process of a variance hearing. It’s hard to believe that there is no legal mechanism to redress or appeal this rezoning by fiat.
Why drag the issue through the city commission and endless blog posts?
The aggrieved parties should hire an attorney to navigate the process and plead thier case.
Seems like there’s a couple of DM tee shirt ideas right here:
“Decatur Metro– All Aboard The Bandwagon”
-or-
“Decatur Metro– If you read it in a forum, then it must be true.”
Seriously, folks. Think for yourselves. While I just roll my eyes at the wannabe pundits going on (and on and on) about our neighborhood’s “evil” motives, it saddens me to see how quick some people are to take their word as gold. For the most part, we’re Not Evil– except for the annoying leaf blower wielding bunch.
I’m sorry, did the competent discussions about the law upset you? Or was it the part where no one agreed that mentally ill equals sex offender?
Damn! I thought cubalibre had assumed responsibility for reading your “discussions”…
For the record, Deanne, it should be clear that in my discussions with delesser, I’ve been looking very carefully at BOTH sides of this issue to find the legal merit in each, and in none of them have I ever referred to the DH residents as bigots or evil. I made it clear in the other thread on this topic that I thought sympathy for folks with mental illness isn’t mutually exclusive from being cautious about what’s in one’s neighborhood, and said that even though I’m sympathetic to the Center, it would be arrogant of me to tell the residents that they don’t have the right to look into this because I myself do not live in the neighborhood. In this thread, I also urged Mr. Christiansen to please continue sharing his views here (and I extend that by asking that you & others who hold similar views do, too). While I disagree that the Center ought to be run out of the neighborhood (because how else are these folks going to learn to transition back into “normal” life once they’ve finished their treatment?), I don’t believe that the opposed residents are evil, or bigots. However, some of them have made some inflammatory statements about the mentally ill, which tends to rile the passionate advocate-type folks on this board up. (That’s usually when Our Gentle Moderator steps in, separates us, and gives us a good shaking to clear our heads.)
For any part I’ve had, either actively or passively (by not saying something), in bringing down the tone of this discussion, I sincerely apologize, because that hasn’t been my intent. We may never agree on this issue, but there’s always room for us to better understand each other’s points of view.
Oh gosh, cubalibre! My bad!
Please accept my heartfelt apology for leaving you to think that I was exasperated with you! My post should have included my appreciation for your well thought out posts. You & Degreatur & Rebecca (throughout the threads) have done a great job of trying to expand the discussion.
I mentioned you only because of delesser ‘s post requesting a private email exchange with you.
Cubalibre has done an excellent job of articulating (though not supporting) the neighbors’ position, and if you read our (respectful) exchanges, you’ll see points developed both for and against each side. I’m not sure how my role in discussing the legalities of the situation has managed to upset you, but I am sorry for that.
Like cubalibre pointed out, there have been a number of inflammatory posts by those who you support (eg, degreatur) which have made sweeping and insulting generalizations about the mentally ill. There are plenty of ways to articulate the neighbors’ concerns without resorting to equating criminality with mental health, and as you can see from talking with cubalibre, when they are articulated substantive conversation emerges. But when the tone of discourse amounts to “not in my backyard” then the responses will be in kind.
I’m also sorry you were insulted that I asked if cubalibre wanted to continue talking in private. I asked for an email exchange only if we were going to keep dissecting the case and did so because I felt the “discussions” were getting to a point where they were not of interest to the majority of the other posters. If you want to discuss the standards of review in the superior court with regard to mixed questions of fact and law, please send an email as well.
Tread carefully delesser. The bigot assertion further up and this taunting remark are borderline crossing the comment policy of no personal attacks or insults.
“Damn! I thought cubalibre had assumed responsibility for reading your “discussions”…”
And this is not a “taunt”?
You can delete my posts as you see fit, but it’s a sad day when reminding someone that an assertion that the mentally ill are sex offenders sounds bigoted gets a warning while Deanne’s comments (which have contributed nothing but insults) go unchecked.
Not to sound like a five year-old, but you started it. And in the world of comment moderating, you go after the initiator. Everyone else is just reacting.
I’ve said nothing about deleting your posts, but your comments were getting to a point where you were on the verge (or past the point in one instance) of a personal attack.
Slights against groups of people are a bit harder to moderate, but instead of passing judgment on the “mentally ill are MORE LIKELY to be sex offenders” comment, I really could have used some data to refute the point. How are any of us supposed to know either way without concrete data? Should I just go with what feels right? Calling someone a bigot may make us feel good, but it works against resolution and doesn’t do anything to advance the conversation.
As for Deanne, I read criticism of thought and action into her comments. I don’t see anything personal.
I will admit that when I think someone has said something offensive, I am quicker to offer a sharp retort tha attempting to initiate a substantive dialogue. I should be better about that, so in that regard, your point is taken. But I take issue with saying that you could use some data to refute the point that those with mental illness are more likely to be sex offenders/criminals.
First, what if I said “black people are more likely to be criminals than white people” or “irish people are more likely to be alcoholics” or something associating a cognizable racial group with a negative stereotype. Isn’t the burden on *me* to show you that the link is there? Shifting the burden onto a minority to refute a negative stereotype results in the sort of systemic privilege which has reveal itself in this entire discussion. So no, I don’t think you should be looking for data to refute a fictitious and offensive point. You should be taking those who are propagating these myths to provide some sort of verificiation.
Second, a statement applying a stereotype to people who suffer from mental illness is complete nonsense. “Mental illness” runs from obsessive-compulsive disorder, to depression, to schizophrenia, to anorexia, to … well, just about anything you can find in the DSM-IV. Do you *really* think that someone can say with any sort of certainty that any characteristic applies to all of these people? There is FAR too much variation between illness, individual, and environment. You might as well say “humans are likely to be sex offenders” because the specificity of the allegation is about the same as saying “mentally ill people are likely to be sex offenders.”
Third, there are people reading this message board and people whose lives are being affected by the things that are being said here. There are people whose jobs are at stake, and who will lose a valuable resource if the wellness center is forced to close. Many of these people suffer from mental illnesses themselves. Are you honestly saying that the burden is on them to show that they are not part of a criminal element, just because someone has made the accusation? Again, I fail to see how this is different from any other sort of prejudice, except that those propagating these beliefs here seem to be getting a free pass while those who point out the bigoted nature of their words are charged with the responsibility of providing some sort of substantive refutation of their groundless accusations.
Fourth, given the vast resources of the internet that each of us have at our fingertips, a simple search for “mental illness stereotypes” will return a wealth of information from a variety of reputable sources. Here are a few examples:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/36/9/10.full
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/sfischo/mental.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m115451131871738/ (this is just an abstract)
And here’s an interesting except the neighbors’ who oppose the wellness center might want to keep in mind. It’s from http://consensusproject.org/advocacy/step2_main. It reads:
“Are people with mental illness likely to be violent?”
The stereotype that people with mental illness are likely to be more violent than the general population is not necessarily consistent with the evidence. Several large-scale research projects have found a weak statistical association between mental illness and violence.(xiv) Serious violence among people with mental illness is concentrated in a small subset of the population — namely those with a co-occurring substance abuse disorder or inadequate access to effective services.(xv) But while people with mental illness are not more violent than the general population, they are far more likely to be victims of crime.(xvi)
(xvi) James Marley & Sarah Buila (2001), “Crimes Against People with Mental Illness: Types, Perpetrators, and Influencing Factors,” Social Work, no. 2.
Of course, this hasn’t even begun to scratch the surface of what is out there. Given the sheer amount of information out there, the complexity of the subject matter, and the prejudicial nature of making an affirmative statement regarding the behavior of those with mental illness, I think it’s proper to charge those making the accusation to the task of providing some sort of evidence.
Finally, I do not understand why slights against groups are harder to moderate. Why couldn’t you just say, “DeGreatur, you can make your point without stereotyping an entire group and insinutating criminal behavior on their behalf. Let’s try not to insult anyone.”? Why is that not something you would do here? You stated that Deanne’s comments amounted to “criticism of thought and action” and nothing “personal”. But what thoughts and actions are being criticized when DeGreatur says to one of your mentally ill readers, “I suspect that you are a sex offender and I do not want you walking through my neighborhood.” That seems personal to me, and if I were personally offended by that comment, I would be sure not to return to read what else you allow to be propgated on your message board.
I take your point about ‘burden of proof’ and actually thought of that after posting my comment. I was just offering an avenue of retort other than “bigot”. Didn’t Nellie ask for proof from the accuser?
In terms of slights against groups, thinking back on it, most of the time it’s been against political groups, which are quite different from groups you have no choice but becoming a part of. That said, I’m a little confused as to which DeGreater comment you’re referring. There’s this one from Decatur Resident…
“The difference, according to many opinions, is that people with mental illness are more likely to be sex offenders, and in a non-residential situation, they are not required by law to register as such. The fact that the Wellness Center is not a church and is not operated by professionals, increases the likelihood of sexual (and other) crimes in the neighborhood, which, with proper screening by professionals, would otherwise be preventable.”
The thing with this comment is that Decatur Resident never says that this is their own opinion, just what’s being said in the neighborhood. I can’t really moderate that, can I? If there is somewhere else where there is a more assertive statement, like the one you mentioned above, then it may have needed to be pulled.
But even that is a sticky wicket, because if I were to start moderating a key perspective of the opposition’s argument, how would we ever have a constructive conversation on the subject?
Fair enough, but it’s not like I just called the person a “bigot” and stormed off. If anything, I tried to say, “putting it this way makes you sound like a bigot” and I still stand by that. But yes, it could have been said more professionally.
“I’m a little confused as to which DeGreater comment you’re referring. There’s this one from Decatur Resident…”
My fault, and apologies to DeGreatur. I was referring to the one from Decatur Resident.
“The thing with this comment is that Decatur Resident never says that this is their own opinion, just what’s being said in the neighborhood. I can’t really moderate that, can I?”
IIt’s your site so that’s all up to you. I think the comment blurs whether it’s reporting or opining, but the culmination of the statement that there is “an increased likelihood of sexual (and other) crimes in the neighborhood” as well as the “bigot” retort could both warrant a poke from the moderator for reasons I stated. But it’s your choice and I really don’t want to opine about how you should take care of things around here.
“If I were to start moderating a key perspective of the opposition’s argument, how would we ever have a constructive conversation on the subject?”
I think the exchange with cubalibre demonstrates that we can have a constructive conversation and be respectful to all sides and parties without making any statements about mental illness or criminal acts or anything else, so I don’t think any beliefs about the nature of mental illness are really key to any argument, except to show that (some) of the neighbors’ opinions rest on unfounded assumptions.
Whatever the case, I apologize if I sounded hostile to you during any of this. I do enjoy your site/blog.
Oh damn it I didn’t mean decatur resident. I don’t even know who is who anymore.
As a Decatur Heights homeowner and resident, please be aware: not all of the DH neighbors have a problem with this center. I am very dismayed by the sweeping generalizations and insinuations made by some opponents of this center, and offended when some opponents act as though they speak for the entire neighborhood. They. Do. Not. There are about 2 and 1/2 human beings behind all of this sound and fury, and they are entitled to their opinion, but they have swept up a huge tide of nastiness which is unbecoming to us all. God help us, this is not the sort of attitude or behavior that I expect in my beloved city.
DM,
A request: Can you put a character limit on comments? I’m spending way too much time reading really long comments than I am doing my job.
Your comment would have been shorter if you had avoided wasted words like “way too much” and “really long”.
Better choice: ” Limit comments’ characters. I no work.” (33 vs 112 characters).
And smiley faces take up 3 characters of space.
HA! Love it. Great reply, Karass!
Please realize that not all, and probably very few DH residents who are opposed to the Center believe that the mentally ill are dangerous and/or more prone to sexual offenses or other criminal behaviors. A resident may oppose the Center without harboring the stereotypical fears of the misinformed or uninformed who make such remarks. Please understand that there are legitimate concerns that have nothing to do with such ignorant comments. There are plenty of ignorant comments going around on both sides.
Thank you for posting this. I originally got involved in this issue not because I had any particular opinion on the center but because I was trouble by some of the bigoted beliefs being propagated by _some_ of the neighborhood members. And I’m glad to see someone on “the other side” of this issue has a problem with the bigotry.
And now it’s just gotten ugly all around. What a mess.
From Decatur Metro’s post ” …The thing with this comment is that Decatur Resident never says that this is their own opinion, just what’s being said in the neighborhood.”
And THAT’S the problem.
Who are these folks in the neighborhood that Decatur Resident (and a couple of others) are accusing of saying all these things? And where in the heck are they saying them? It certainly isn’t an accurate accounting of the June or October neighborhood meetings. (Didn’t get an email about Sunday’s meeting. Divine intervention?)
While the October meeting did get extremely heated, the animosity was mainly directed towards two first time attendees who informed us( in relation to nothing that had been said at the meeting) that we were all racists. Yeah, they pretty much got slammed with a tidal wave of ” WTF?” And Commissioner Boykin was the target of some incredibly ill mannered Wellness Center opponents. (His composure was admirable and secured my vote.)
It’s a pretty sucky situation all around. The owner/landlord is a good man and a fine neighbor. The actual Wellness Center folks have conducted themselves with dignity throughout. But… if you don’t try to stop businesses (nonprofit or noot)from coming
oops! and it’s not even cocktail time…
If you don’t speak up the first time a business comes in, then how do you successfully stop the next one?
That’s funny, Deanne. I didn’t see the word “racist” in Dave Kell’s write up of that meeting. Can you tell us what comment you are referring to exactly? There have undoubtedly been comments by both sides attributing motivations to the other group. What you are doing here is no different.
Meanwhile, I did see things like this in Dave’s write up of the October meeting.
“Why is the neighborhood concerned? It’s not because we are not sympathetic to those having mental problems and needing help. It is because of the lack of screening. We don’t know if some of those walking the blocks near the house have problems which could put our children in jeopardy. As a prosecutor for the City Atlanta, who is a neighbor, has said to me; people with these problems sometimes have associated dangerous profiles, such as bipolar behavior, drug addiction, or even sexual predator issues. Anyone living in the neighborhood who is a sexual offender is required by law to register. But a possible sex offender living up to a week in this house is not.” (from Dave’s blog.)
Talk of sex offenders and other criminals has been seen in just about every message board exchange since this started. Obviously we can’t attribute every comment by an individual to the group, nor is anyone doing that. Like I said before, there is no reason this has to be an inflammatory debate and cubalibre’s posts reveal that. I have asked numerous times for the opposed neighbors to state what exact portions of the ordinance they feel are in violation, but no coherent answer has been forthcoming.
So please, if you have a problem with the wellness center and want to make it known, why not tell us what your problem is and why you feel the need to pursue a resolution through the appeals process. There has been enough thorough discussion of the zoning ordinance and public policy here that you can easily contribute.
delesser-
My “problem” was vented in my original post and not about the Wellness Center itself.
My concern with the Wellness Center is primarily a zoning one. But I’ve never felt a need to pursue a resolution through the appeals process. What made you say that? Indeed, my respect for the neighbor who owns the property will keep me out of that fight.
As far as the October meeting goes, my recollection. Not Dave’s. Don’t know him except through his blog. Rather than continue to bore the other DM readers silly, my views regarding 444 Sycamore Drive are in the inDecatur archives (posted as “D”).
What made me assume that you were one of those who wanted to appeal the city’s ruling was your hostility toward those who support the wellness center, your antagonism of those of us who were discussing the issue, and your cheer leading for the posters who want to appeal the decision. Since you didn’t provide any substance in your posts and only chose sides, I was left to guess as to your position (which I
Have my posts offended you somehow, Deanne? If so, please tell me exactly what I said to warrant such overt hostility.
As one of the two “first time attendees” who were “slammed” at the October meeting, I can say with absolute certainty that no one called anyone racist. That doesn’t even make sense.
I think the real question is: Why would you claim something happened that didn’t happen? The two first time attendees addressed the way the neighbors were handling the situation, briefly discussed zoning issues, and then recommended that perhaps neighbors could be more considerate to Sherry.
I don’t even really know what to do with such a ridiculous assertion.
Edited to Add:
@Deanne: You admit that there was hostility directed toward Sherry and toward Boykin. Would it be so diffiicult to perhaps admit that there was hostility directed toward the two first time attendees?
Let’s try to keep this discussion civil, Deanne. There’s no need to mock people and certainly no need to lie. I mean that genuinely; I’m aware that blog posts can come across as disingenuous and sarcastic.
This discussion has made me stupid. I mistyped my own comment. There was hostility directed at Sherry, and I think this needs to be admitted. She looked like she wanted to cry when she left the meeting.
Decatur Resident-
Monday was not my day for making my point either…
You’re right. Sherry, the Center’s Director, was addressed in an obnoxious manner by some folks at the meeting. (And I said so on inDecatur at the time. For which either you or your significant other commended me.) It was an oversight in trying to get to my main point about the only Decatur Heights’ “mob mentality” that I’ve observed. It’s possible that I incorrectly remember you calling us racists although it sure seemed implied which accounted for the swift crowd reaction of eyerolling, head shaking, and groans. (Rather tame as far as “mobs” go. But then, this is Decatur.) I’m pretty good at owning up to it when I’m wrong. If I find that’s the case, I’ll be back to say so.
Who are these people in our neighborhood that you accuse of having a lynch mob mentality? I’d like to be forewarned. And if there is a lynch mob just waiting to strike, tell me, and I’ll help you run them out of town.
Decatur Resident-
Here I am to stand corrected.
If neither Dave (who posted below) nor you remember “racist” being said, then I offer my apology. I know I didn’t comment on it (or my impression of “it”) at the time hoping that it was a one time thing, that, if ignored, would go away.
[And unfortunately I'm not having much luck accessing inDecatur's archives to better refresh my memory.]
A question (and I don’t have a dog in this fight): as I understand it ‘nonprofit business’ is a federal tax status. Are nonprofits treated differently under local zoning ordinances than for-profit businesses? I ask, because I am not aware of any for-profit business with this sort of traffic that would be allowed to operate in a residential zoning district (i.e. hair/nail salon, scrapbooking studio, or the previously suggested auto body shop). Regardless of the services being provided or the group being served, this would not meet the standards of any residential zone . . . or am I missing something? And if I am, please, be gentle.
Gladys (as gentle as possible): The zoning issue has nothing to do with whether or not this place is a business. The zoning code for r-60 allows for personal care homes, and the PSWC has been classified as a personal care home.
The neighbor’s concerns (at least the neighbors who aren’t shrieking about child molestors and the mentally ill and whatnot) seem to center around the daytime activities of the facility. The facility has community activities during the day—things akin to creative writing workshops and AA meetings. These are daytime activities only, so the city has (preliminarily at least) determined that you cannot regulate daytime visitors to a home (and it is classified as a home since it’s a personal care home). At least part of the concern centers around the fact that if the city opted to regulate visitors to 444 sycamore but not visitors to my home or your home, this would have the appearance of discrimination against the mentally ill. Does that make sense?
If you read Dave Kell’s InDecatur blog, he has a link to all of the documents submitted by the PSWC including a legal brief outlining why the PSWC meets the standards for r-60 zoning. That might help further clarify. It’s late and I’ve been at this all day, so I’m not sure how helpful my explanation has been.
As far as I know, the PSWC hasn’t been classified as a personal care home. The state wrote a letter on behalf of its contractor stating that the Wellness Center was “similar to a personal care home.” You can see that letter on the inDecatur blog.
The Wellness Center’s contract with the state requires that it provide daytime activities and support services to 12-25 drop-ins a day. Presumably, this is an ever changing population of persons with mental illness. The Wellness Center is paid for providing these services. I don’t think most Decatur residents have that many friends, and, hopefully, do not receive payment for providing services for them, so I think there’s a substantial difference between the day-use at this facility and having friends over.
As noted previously, the city manager, Peggy Merriss, in November, did find this day-use to conflict with zoning requirements and the city required that it cease by December. I don’t know why Peggy or the city changed its mind, but the argument that this is discrimination against mentally ill people who want to have their friends over doesn’t make sense. My understanding is that the drop-ins are not the friends of the residents but persons self-referred or referred by medical professionals.
The participants in the day activities at the center do not pay for them.
:sigh:
The argument changes with whatever is convenient, and no one seems to be able to get their story straight.
Just a thought – and I’m almost certain this argument has been made – but if the concern is that a non-profit should be regulated just as a business should (ie. denied access in a residential area because of the volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic it brings onto residential streets), then why is a church – which I’m fairly certain is generally considered a “non-profit organization” – exempted from these same restrictions?
I am a supporter of personal care homes, and this is NIMBY, but need some help here: does the City zoning ordinance really allow any resident of the City to have classes for 25 people at their home every day as long as it is not for profit? I’m sorry if I’m seeming dense, but I’m certainly feeling that way. And I appreciate your contributions to this discussion, and your patience!
I’m finding the lengthy discussion here interesting.
Just for the record, I don’t recall oneone calling anyone else racist at the church meeting, although the now hackneyed Rodney King phrase “Can’t we all just get along” was used. Race has never been the issue here.
The October church meeting got a lot uglier than any of us have seen in our neighborhood, but the comments here about threats, “lynching equipment,” pitchforks, torches, marches, etc. are WAY over the top! Noboy has been threatened, veiled or overtly.
I’m happy to report that the opposition is quietly and calmly going about the business of studying the strrength of its case to be presented to the ZBA. Only a couple of people who are not part of the organized opposition are commenting infrequently over at inDECATUR.
Ad best as I can tell, everything that can be said about this issue has been said, but perhaps I’ll read something.
In the meantime, can’t we all just get along?
Hi Dave!
Thanks for weighing in.
(Did Decatur Metro ask you to come round us up and take us home?)
Maybe the 4/5 Academy could be put at 444 Sycamore and the personal care home could be moved to Fifth Avenue? Is there a playground on the 444 site? Is the acreage more or less than what Glennwood currently has? Flood plain? Gentrification? Room for kids if massive annexation occurs?
(Sorry, couldn’t help but wonder what would happen if we lumped all the contentious issues together).
How could you forget to free Westchester?
Wait! That’s that ticket! Move CSD Administration to Fifth Avenue, the 4/5 Academy to 444 Sycamore, and the personal care home to Westchester. No one would be happy but at least everyone would be equally unhappy!
(Actually the first WAS suggested in the past, not sure why CSD Admin never wanted to go there. Maybe it had deteriorated too much by then).
That’s a good one, Deanne. Everyone from DH, hop in the back of the truck.
I don’t intend to join this discussion, but upon further reflection, I’d like to correct my earlier post. I don’t think anyone used the “Can’t we all just get along” phrase in so many words in the October meeting. I used that in the summary to generally characterize a statement someone made. [Chalk the memory error up to old age.]
Also, in my rushed earlier comment there are some obvious spelling errors:
oneone should be anyone
noboy should be nobody
ad should be as
“noboy should be nobody” would make a good tee shirt slogan too…
Deanne,
In response to your comment above about the lynch mobs, you are right that there has by no means been a literal mob. Then again, I’m out of town a lot so it’s possible I missed pitchfork day.
In any case, to clarify what I mean about lynch mobs, I think there is a general mob mentality here. My impression of this debate is that it started with one member of the community being a bit concerned and curious. I’m going to assume that person was Grace Ann not because I’m pointing fingers but because it’s easier to say, “grace ann” than “one member of the community.”
So anyway, my suspicion is that “grace ann” talked to some of her neighbors about her concerns and they all looked into it together. This is all very neighborly and commendable. I’m all about discussing concerns.
The problem is, when you get a group of people united around any issue, they become increasingly intractable, more convinced that they are right, and more averse to other opinions. They begin to see anyone who disagrees with them as the enemy. I am of course not immune to this, and I don’t think anyone is. Groups specialize in groupthink.
My own sense is that the individual members of the DHNA group, as well as the group as a whole, has completely shut out other viewpoints as a result of falling into groupthink and thus has a mob mentality. I think in situations like this there are always risks of grave harm, especially given that this is a situation of a dominant group (non-mentally ill people with property and some degree of money) versus an oppressed group (mentally ill people staying in short term housing).
If the fight were about, say, the neighborhood versus my fence and me (don’t come after me! my fence is just fine, I promise) I would have much less issue with this because the neighbors wouldn’t be targeting a fairly powerless group.
This is why I have also found the insinuations that the PSWC has somehow convinced the city to look the other way to be particularly distasteful. It is also why, when attending the meeting, I pointed out that perhaps there was a more neighborly way to approach the issue, and was particularly infuriated by the group’s ire at this suggestion.
Grace Ann and Soren do NOT represent DHNA in this matter. Period. Members of DHNA have differing opinions on the subject, and the Association has NOT taken formal action on it.
Again, as I said above: I only use Grace Ann as a representative and an abbreviation.
Grace Ann, Soren, and Dave have been the most vocal members in this matter as well as the members the neighborhood has chosen to allow to speak on its behalf (at community meetings and the city commission), so I don’t think it’s a bad assumption to believe that they represent the opinions of the neighbors who oppose the center.
Dave,
I think your spelling errors, my repeated postings to correct repeated errors, and other such things are evidence that this has rendered us all a bit, well…dumb. Thanks for your correction of the racist remark and your further correction of the can’t we all get along thing. I don’t think I’m unique in this, but I abhor being misquoted or misheard.
I just know they have littered in my yard in front of me, reached over my fence and have walked off with my things, i had to chase them down the street, emptied ashtrays out of cars from people who pick them up in my driveway, and acted very suspicious around my children..just saying..we also have 2 sex offenders on ridgeland, i am not sure what is going on in this neighborhood….
Susan, did you report these incidents (the littering & theft, I mean) to the police? Or to the Center’s director? If so, what was the response? I feel certain the Center would want to put a quick halt to incidents like this, because they feed into the negative perception people already have of the residents and the drop-ins.
I have to wonder, Susan, if you are the neighbor who stormed to the Wellness Center with a little white dog, screaming at the staff about participants standing at the top of the Center’s driveway and threatening to make a formal complaint to (whoever). Was that you who was pointing at one of the Center’s participants, screaming “You people have been warned!” while the participant stood there in horror but said nothing? Was that you?
Wow, now there’s at least two disturbed neighbors.
I am the only Nelliebelle and you are the only Gibbets. Does that mean anything?
At least we’re not disturbed.
Susan doesn’t have a little white dog. And she wouldn’t behave that way–at least not the Susan I’ve known for almost ten years.
I thought it might be helpful to outline the three different arguments being made. Maybe this will offer some clarity as well as help some understand why this issue has been so contentious:
1) Those who do not oppose the center point out that it has now been certified twice as a personal care home, and that the daytime visitors are akin to any other visitors at the house. They further point out that to regulate visitors to the center but not regulate visitors to your house or mine looks a lot like a fair housing violation.
They further argue that the neighborhood has handled this issue incorrectly and also believe that the center has been cooperative in quickly working with the neighborhood to resolve issues regarding trash, noise. etc.
2) Faction number two who do not oppose the center argue that the residents who do oppose it have espoused much bigotry. They support the center and/or remain neutral due to this.
3) Faction number one of people who oppose the center have no problem with its nighttime operations but believe the daytime operations are not proper for r-60 zoning. Some of them question whether the center is a personal care home or was ever certified as such.
4) Faction number two of people who oppose the center argue that the mentally ill are dangerous. Various statements made about the mentally ill by this faction on this blog, on dave kell’s blog, and in community meetings have included:
1. The mentally ill are more likely to molest children and rape women
2. The mentally ill are more likely to commit crimes
3. The mentally ill are not our neighbors
4. The center is an alternative to hospitalization and most people in need of hospitalization are criminals
5) Faction number three of people who oppose the center believe that both the daytime and evening operations do not match r-60 zoning. I haven’t really encountered anyone making this argument unless they were also making argument number four.
There is also a small faction proclaiming that the city commission is somehow in cahoots with the center in some sort of unethical fashion. This is a small faction and their arguments are nonsensical, born of frustration, and not really worth addressing.
I believe the contentious nature of this debate has to do with the fact that:
Those who support the center believe that all those opposed to the center support argument number four and are bigoted against the mentally ill.
Those who oppose the center are angry at those who support the center for lumping them in with the vocal minority who have espoused bigoted beliefs against the mentally ill.
I think this is fair. Perhaps in further debate, everyone could identify themselves as, “hi, i’m a number 1 or 2 (or whatever)”. Further, those who want to contend that this is a zoning issue should not make bigoted assertions about the mentally ill, and those who believe that the PSWC is within its rights to be in the neighborhood should not assume someone opposes it due to bigotry _unless_ the person in opposition has previously made bigoted statements about the mentally ill.
I think this is fair.
ok, that was more than three arguments. Obviously I am a math failure.
I think I’ll refrain from calling myself a number 1 or number 2.
OMG– I almost spit Frappucino all over my keyboard reading that! Nicely played, sir.
It really is amazing how bent out of shape people get just over a zoning issue–wow, I’d hate to see what happens when the voting districts or trash collection days change.
“I believe the contentious nature of this debate has to do with the fact that:
Those who support the center believe that all those opposed to the center support argument number four and are bigoted against the mentally ill.
Those who oppose the center are angry at those who support the center for lumping them in with the vocal minority who have espoused bigoted beliefs against the mentally ill.”
That sums it up perfectly.
Nobody ever offered an answer, so I’d like to ask again: To those who object to the facility on the grounds that the location is not appropriate, where do you think it should go? (Bear in mind, the type of support it offers is predicated on a residential setting.)
I’ve heard someone mention Winn Way…
What a mess.
Seriously. There is so much misinformation and confusion that I don’t know if anyone will crawl out of this alive.