Comments on: Different Arguments Solidify Against 444 Sycamore Prior to ZBA Meeting

By: Ridgelandistan

Ridgelandistan — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:19:59 +0000

The NIMBY accusation is specious. As mentioned in this thread there are nearby facilities that provide these services and are perfectly acceptable. If a variance had been proposed to the neighborhood for a one-off exception for this worthy experiment it might have passed (or proven your NIMBY accusation true). But instead, a campaign of misdirection and obfuscation was taken to circumvent zoning laws and hide the facts. It’s quite apparent that the city failed their constitutional duty to provide due process to the residents of DH. City staff bypassed the proper zoning variance procedure by either omission or commission.

It’s a shame there isn’t compensation for the costs these residents are expending to retrieve their property rights and damage awards to modify the city’s behavior in future similiar matters. The ultimate fallout for this sad episode will have to be addressed later during elections.

By: Soren & Grace Ann

Soren & Grace Ann — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:56:36 +0000

Grace Ann Young and Soren Christiansen believe that the Peer Support Wellness Center is an unprecedented program operating in a neighborhood specifically zoned for a more restrictive, regulated, and licensed Family Personal Care Home (serving a maximum of 6 people). Instead, this program offers “a peer-run alternative to a traditional mental health day program and psychiatric hospitalization” to self-referred, unscreened addictive-disordered and/or mentally ill participants (with unknown levels of need and serving up to 25 participants at one time per day). We believe it’s simply not allowable under our zoning codes. We believe the Peer Support Wellness Center must be licensed by the state as a Family Personal Care Home and be accountable to the state rules and regulations of Family Personal Care Homes. We invited neighbors over who were also concerned. From that initial meeting we now have 42 homes (including myself and Grace Ann) who are a.) in support of our cause, and b.) have requested to be placed on our e-mail list so they can remain informed of what’s happening and how they can help out. We have received donations for the legal appeal fund for 444 Sycamore Drive. We believe that it is most unfortunate that the city did not do proper diligence in respect to its own zoning codes. And now here we are. We’ll see you at the Zoning Board of Appeal in March.

By: Soren Christiansen

Soren Christiansen — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:39:30 +0000

To Clairemont’s comment: “I get that it’s not appropriate if the Center is breaking zoning laws, etc. However, I can’t help but think that the true impetus behind the issue is that people don’t want mental health patients in their backyard”

We already have a Mental Health Center and a Drug Addiction Center in our backyard. It’s called Winn Way and it’s fine that they’re there because it complies with THE ZONING OF THAT STREET. If anyone has any interest in seeing how close these 2 LEGAL facilities are to Decatur Heights please go to google earth and look at the proximity of the Mental Health Center and Drug Addiction Center on Winn Way to Decatur Heights.

Sorry Clairemont, but the NIMBY stuff is really offensive. I bought into Decatur because of its character and the fact that it not only tolerates, it embraces, the uniqueness of all of us. It doesn’t mean that I want the city to disregard the zoning codes.

By: CSD Mom

CSD Mom — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:37:21 +0000

“Your “mentally-sound” neighbors are just as likely to cause “disturbance” and “location checks.”

Except that I’d be willing to bet that none of the residences in the neighborhood have had twenty 911 calls in the last 20 months.

By: Clairemont

Clairemont — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:14:48 +0000

“We don’t want to harm the program,” said Grace Ann Young, a resident who also opposes the center. “We want answers on how it ended up in a neighborhood. We are ready for legal action to get that answer.”

I get that it’s not appropriate if the Center is breaking zoning laws, etc. However, I can’t help but think that the true impetus behind the issue is that people don’t want mental health patients in their backyard (see Young’s quote above). We can’t keep sending these patients back to jails and government-run hospitals. It’s not working and it’s costing us more tax-payer money than is necessary or helpful.

The Wellness Center is an innovative approach for alternative treatment for mental health patients. Decatur should be proud to have this respite in its neighborhood. Regarding the fear of crime, the mentally ill are no more violent (by percentage) than the population-at-large. Your “mentally-sound” neighbors are just as likely to cause “disturbance” and “location checks.”

By: Decatur Metro

Decatur Metro — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:18:10 +0000

Yeah, I saw that, but it doesn’t tell you anything about who these calls are in reference to.

So, for instance, are these “disturbances” caused by residents of the Center or are they calling ABOUT disturbances being made by outside parties? I find it difficult to believe that the “criminal trespass” call, IF made by the Center (we don’t know), would be about someone that lived or worked there.

Maybe I’m reading something wrong, but it seems pretty unfair to knock the Center for DPD calls stemming from events they had no control over.

By: CSD Mom

CSD Mom — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:02:48 +0000

The most recent 911 call was made from within the center on Monday and was regarding a suicide threat inside the building.

By: CSD Mom

CSD Mom — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:01:46 +0000

“Unfortunately, it’s unclear whether these calls are being made ABOUT the Center or BY the Center, so it’s hard to gauge any actual count of “incidents” caused by the Center”

Not true. According to Dave Kell on the Decatur Heights site:”
In redacting, I blanked out the phone numbers, which the police obtain via 911 ID and Caller ID. I’m not aware of any way anyone opposed to the Center could make it appear they were calling from within the Center.

In looking at the unredacted list, it appears 8 calls were from inside the Center, 6 were from the cell phone of someone who apparently works inside the center, and 1 was from a neighbor. I can’t tell for sure about the other five.”
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/decatur_heights/2010/02/no-incidents-at-444-sycamore-really.html