Live blog: Ability Housing Springfield meeting

[mtraininjax]

I have been assured by Ability Housing that this is not over and while I hate the idea that this is going to end with a bad lawsuit due to the discrimination against the disabled, I keep reminding myself that this is Jacksonville after all and fear and prejudice is often the order of the day. Many here require getting hit with the proverbial sledgehammer before they figure out what at least most of the rest of the country has already.  That the disabled, all disable, have the right to live where they chose and that they have the right to reasonable accommodations to be able to live there. The residents of Springfield do not have the right to make that choice for them nor, frankly, does the city. And yet, they just did for at least 12 of them.

And Jacksonville will soon be in the news, for yet again, acting as a backward city with yet more people, this time in the pioneer neighborhood called "Springfield" acting as a bunch of whiny NIMBY's. Nice. 

And the editors of MJ are happy to throw the WLA crowd under the JTA bus, yet, crickets over this latest decision.....when it does impact the neighborhood and casts a black eye on the City as a whole.

[sheclown]

Let's talk "Reasonable Accommodations"

State and local governments -- Title II Highlights.

    May not refuse to allow a person with a disability to participate in a service, program, or activity simply because the person has a disability.

        For example, a city may not refuse to allow a person with epilepsy to use parks and recreational facilities.

    Must provide programs and services in an integrated setting, unless separate or different measures are necessary to ensure equal opportunity.

    Must eliminate unnecessary eligibility standards or rules that deny individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to enjoy their services, programs or activities unless "necessary" for the provisions of the service, program or activity.

        Requirements that tend to screen out individuals with disabilities, such as requiring a driver's license as the only acceptable means of identification, are also prohibited.

        Safety requirements that are necessary for the safe operation of the program in question, such as requirements for eligibility for drivers' licenses, may be imposed if they are based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.

    Are required to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures that deny equal access to individuals with disabilities, unless a fundamental alteration in the program would result.

        For example, a city office building would be required to make an exception to a rule prohibiting animals in public areas in order to admit guide dogs and other service animals assisting individuals with disabilities.

    Must furnish auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication, unless an undue burden or fundamental alteration would result.

    May provide special benefits, beyond those required by the regulation, to individuals with disabilities.

    May not place special charges on individuals with disabilities to cover the costs of measures necessary to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment, such as making modifications required to provide program accessibility or providing qualified interpreters.

   Shall operate their programs so that, when viewed in their entirety, they are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

http://www.hum.wa.gov/Documents/FairHousing/SamplePolicies/TenantsWithDisabilities.pdf

Wouldn't "supportive services" qualify as REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS under the Fair Housing Act? 

By denying these services, or worse yet, using the fact that the disabled need special accommodations -- calling them a "special use" because of them and disallowing them -- the city has violated the rights of the potential tenants.

[sheclown]

Taken together, these provisions are intended to prohibit exclusion and segregation of individuals with disabilities and the denial of equal opportunities enjoyed by others, based on, among other things, presumptions, patronizing attitudes, fears, and stereotypes about individuals with disabilities. Consistent with these standards, public entities are required to ensure that their actions are based on facts applicable to individuals and not on presumptions as to what a class of individuals with disabilities can or cannot do.

http://www.ada.gov/reg2.html

[sheclown]

Burney :If they were just renting to an average person ...

[sheclown]

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND
THE CITY OF ANSONIA, CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMPLAINT NUMBER 204-14-150

The parties to this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") are the United States of America and the City of Ansonia, Connecticut.  The City of Ansonia is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1), and is, therefore, subject to title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.

This matter was initiated by a complaint filed with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") pursuant to title II of the ADA.  The complainant, Recovery Network of Programs, who planned to open a treatment facility for qualified individuals with substance abuse disabilities, was not permitted to open the facility by the City of Ansonia because the City's zoning code excluded substance abuse treatment facilities from certain zones.  The complainant alleges that the City refused to allow the facility on the basis of disability, in violation of the ADA.

Under title II of the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, such as the City of Ansonia, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.  42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.  Zoning and land use decisions are services, programs, or activities of a public entity.Â

The Department of Justice is the federal agency responsible for administering and enforcing title II of the ADA with respect to all programs, services, and regulatory activities relating to planning and development by public entities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.190.  The Attorney General is authorized to bring a civil action enforcing title II of the ADA if the Department of Justice is unable to secure compliance by voluntary means.  42 U.S.C. § 12133; 28 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart F.

The United States of America and the City of Ansonia have agreed to resolve this matter as set forth below.  This agreement shall not be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the City of Ansonia.

B.        Injunctive Relief

The City of Ansonia shall not discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA on the face of its regulations; or in making land use decisions regarding, or plans to create, operate, or modify, facilities that provide services for individuals with disabilities.  Such non-discrimination includes making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a facility, unless such modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the land use

[sheclown]

So the bottom line here is that the city of Jacksonville is preventing a landowner from providing reasonable accommodations to the disabled.  The city has said that if Ability Housing wants to rent to "average people" that is fine.

They have, by design, forced Ability Housing (with this determination) to break the ADA requirements that they and all others are forced to follow.

This interpretation is "akin to" the city refusing to put a ramp or lift in a newly built government building and allow the disabled access to those services.

[chris farley]

If the disabled vet has a child or foster child for that matter, will  he be allowed to live at Cottage Avenue? 

[sheclown]

Not according to Calvin Burney. 

[strider]

If the disabled vet has a child or foster child for that matter, will  he be allowed to live at Cottage Avenue? 

Two things about this.  To begin with, they are studio apartments and so are not conducive to a family situation. The only reason to bring this up is to try to justify the prejudice against the project.  The other is everyone goes through Ability Housing so that if there is a need for housing for a family, the other properties available to Ability Housing can be offered to fill that need. It has also been stated multiple times that consideration would be given for a couple if a need and desire would arise.  That might apply to a single person and single child as well.

None of that matters at this point since the city and a group of Springfield residents has already denied the right of reasonable accommodations to the potential residents of the apartment building.  It is a shame that people have to learn the hard way but with a city that can't get it right either, not much else can be expected I guess.

[sheclown]

If the disabled vet has a child or foster child for that matter, will  he be allowed to live at Cottage Avenue? 

Two things about this.  To begin with, they are studio apartments and so are not conducive to a family situation. The only reason to bring this up is to try to justify the prejudice against the project.  The other is everyone goes through Ability Housing so that if there is a need for housing for a family, the other properties available to Ability Housing can be offered to fill that need. It has also been stated multiple times that consideration would be considered for a couple if a need and desire would arise.  That might apply to a single person and single child as well.

None of that matters at this point since the city and a group of Springfield residents has already denied the right of reasonable accommodations to the potential residents of the apartment building.  It is a shame that people have to learn the hard way but with a city that can't get it right either, not much else can be expected I guess.

That's what I was thinking too Joe.  I thought that since the project's focus is on PERMANENT supportive housing, you wouldn't put a small child with adults in a studio apartment -- you'd want to find a more suitable and PERMANENT location. 

Those darn babies grow up to be large children quite quickly.

[sheclown]

I have been assured by Ability Housing that this is not over and while I hate the idea that this is going to end with a bad lawsuit due to the discrimination against the disabled, I keep reminding myself that this is Jacksonville after all and fear and prejudice is often the order of the day. Many here require getting hit with the proverbial sledgehammer before they figure out what at least most of the rest of the country has already.  That the disabled, all disable, have the right to live where they chose and that they have the right to reasonable accommodations to be able to live there. The residents of Springfield do not have the right to make that choice for them nor, frankly, does the city. And yet, they just did for at least 12 of them.

And Jacksonville will soon be in the news, for yet again, acting as a backward city with yet more people, this time in the pioneer neighborhood called "Springfield" acting as a bunch of whiny NIMBY's. Nice. 

And the editors of MJ are happy to throw the WLA crowd under the JTA bus, yet, crickets over this latest decision.....when it does impact the neighborhood and casts a black eye on the City as a whole.

Hmm.  I wouldn't bet on editorial complacency over this issue, Mtrain.  After all, one of the principal players in this mess has been actively trying to blackmail and intimidate me for a few months over the issue.

seriously?  To what end?

[sheclown]

Jack Meeks brings up DIA which will remove "homeless footprint "downtown

Has the DIA taken up an official position on this yet?

[sheclown]

In today's paper:

LETTERS FROM READERS

Housing for Homeless
Are city rules discriminatory?

At Ability Housing, our goal is to end homelessness in Northeast Florida.

The solution to ending homelessness is to provide homes for those in need.

The major challenges to that solution are funding and community acceptance.

The state of Florida has agreed to provide funding for Ability Housing to acquire and rehabilitate 12 apartments on Cottage Avenue in Springfield for homeless persons with a disability.

Ability Housing has chosen to prioritize veterans to receive the housing.

The funding from the state is site specific.  It cannot be moved to another location.

Springfield residents have opposed the project and have consistently maintained that the only alternative they will consider is for the development to be abandoned.

Last week, the Planning commission sided with the residents when it upheld the city's decision that the proposed development violates the Springfield Overlay Zoning district.

This fight is not over.  The Ability Housing Board is determining an appropriate response.

The ruling by the city calls into question whether the entire Springfield Overlay is in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It prohibits governmental entities from discriminating against persons with disabilities in zoning and land use decisions.

In a strikingly similar case settled earlier this year, the city of New Orleans agreed to:


* Reverse it decision to deny permits for a 20-unit development for homeless persons with disabilities.

*Amend its zoning ordinance so that developments of this type are allowed in any zone where multi-family housing is permitted.

*Provide funding for 350 additional homes for the homeless.

Perhaps the outcome of this case is that state funding is lost for these 12 apartments -- and replaced with city funding for 350 others.

Greg Matovina, chairman
Ability Housing of Northeast Florida

[sheclown]

The ruling by the city calls into question whether the entire Springfield Overlay is in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This is what Joe has said from day one.

[sheclown]

Looks like Jack Meeks and Joanne Tredinnick might have struck the hornet's nest.

Increased homeless housing and no more Springfield Overlay....

Yes, seems like it Stephen.