SPAR's "RED ALERT" aimed at neighbors...uses Proton Lab staff and faculty ?!?

[tufsu1]

All it takes is a call to the planning department to get a copy of the actual PUD.

but bickering about it on this site is so much more fun

[mtraininjax]

but bickering about it on this site is so much more fun

And with just a few more pages, this thread will be more infamous than the Moon River Pizza incident.

[cindi]

I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with the structures at 3rd and Main, or thinks they are bad for the neighborhood, with or without Proton patients.

Point is, judgments based on class such as good rooming houses (Proton Lab apartments) versus bad rooming houses (Joe and my legal rentals for example) are just bound to cause strife. 

Rather than investigate any situation, SPAR Council attacks, spreads falsehoods, starts RED ALERTS and controlled panic, encourages complaints to code enforcement and other agencies, etc etc etc.  Board members throw their weight around (Proton Lab will back this up) and etc. 

This is all a waste of time.

Want reconciliation?  Let's start by not calling us "predators."  That will go a long way.

What we need are those Springfield residents who are middle of the road, willing to look at the facts of the law and the overlay, and are willing to mediate our way through this.  A thankless and dangerous job, and to-date, I don't see any volunteers.

Until then, I don't really know what will happen.

well, someone posted on one of these threads (they are all the same now).  that the only people that are qualified to do anything with/to/about springfield is chrisufgator, stephen, yourself and strider - basically, no one else need apply.  looks like the positions have been filled.

[sheclown]

Stephen Dare For Mayor!

[Ethylene]

Stephen Dare For Mayor!

Hey, I already posted same back on July 14 in another thread. It's gaining momentum!

[Dan B]

I agree. He should run!

[Gonzo]

Point is, judgments based on class such as good rooming houses (Proton Lab apartments) versus bad rooming houses (Joe and my legal rentals for example) are just bound to cause strife. 

Just my two-cents here, and SheClown if you look at other posts I have voiced support for you and Strider in some of your posts. Onthis, however, I have to disagree. The Lofts at 3rd and Main is definately NOT a rooming house. They are individual apartments each self-sufficient and self-contained. they are designed to be occupied by a single family per unit.

Group homes, by the very definition of their name, are single homes in which multiple, non-related persons live. They are NOT apartments and were not designed or intended to be used as you use them (if your buidings were ORIGINALLY designed as apartment buildings, then please correct me).

I also understand that the homes you currently own and operate should be left as is. My only concern is that there not be any more homes of a similar ilk opened in the area. We have our fair share.

Rather than investigate any situation, SPAR Council attacks, spreads falsehoods, starts RED ALERTS and controlled panic, encourages complaints to code enforcement and other agencies, etc etc etc.  Board members throw their weight around (Proton Lab will back this up) and etc. 

My opinion (and it is just that, my opinion) is that this all is a matter of you reap what you sow. Ill will, rude behavior, boorish attitudes and bullying -- on both sides of the playing field -- have led to irreconcilable differences. At some point EVERYONE has to stop pushing their own agenda, negotiate in good faith, give in a little and come to a  mutually aggreeable solution.

This is all a waste of time.

Yes it is. With everyone on ALL sides holding grudges and crying over milk that was spilt long ago. how about everyone act like adults, agrees to be open to each other's views, sits down at a table and sees what it would take to cohabitate in the neighborhood. Civilly, no shouting, no raised voices, no towering over anyone, no finger pointing, no name calling, no "you knowcked down my sand castle," no "your ruining the neighborhood." Reasonable, educated, civil discussion.

Want reconciliation?  Let's start by not calling us "predators."  That will go a long way.

Without sounding like a jerk, I have to ask the question; are there predators living in your houses? If so, you will never live the lable down. Do these people need a place to live? Absolutely. Do we want that place in our neighborhood? Absolutely not.

People will always have a strong reaction to those who commit heinous crimes. They will always try to drive out those who are in recovery regardless of there good intentions. It is the neature of the human state. Is it right? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. The bottom line is that you will never change that particular opinion.

What we need are those Springfield residents who are middle of the road, willing to look at the facts of the law and the overlay, and are willing to mediate our way through this.  A thankless and dangerous job, and to-date, I don't see any volunteers.

Until then, I don't really know what will happen.

I guess you could call me a middle of the roader. I can see both sides of the argument, but strongly disagree to allowing more group homes into the neighborhood.

I would be happy to act as an arbitrator, but it wuld be much better to have a professional handle this. The biggest challenge is this: can everybody check their egos at the door and come into a negotiation in the true spirit of wanting a better neighborhood?

[Johnny]

Gonzo, you are so right...

Wait, you only have 24 posts? Please strike my above comment from the record!

[Dan B]

Is there a middle road? Personally, I'm perfectly willing to let the facilities that have been grandfathered in stay without comment, or complaint.

However, the issue (Which keeps getting lost) is what Gloria is calling "sober houses" where they have 5 men in treatment living together, without guidance or in-house support, and in a residentially zoned house.

The overlay uses the number 5 to try to delineate between a roommate situation, and a rooming house situation.

Joe and Gloria have, in my opinion, exploited a loophole in the overlay to expand their business model.

So to back off that stance, and in an attempt to be reasonable about this, what is the middle ground?

Lets say everyone in the community were to go to SPAR and tell them to lay off... what is the trade off? What are Joe and Gloria willing to do? So far, they have been as rash and unbendable as SPAR because they feel they have the law on their side. SPAR similarly feels the law is on their side, and has asked the General Council for a decision on the current law (I have been told that there is NO proposed legislation, just lots of talk).

So, again I ask. What is the trade off? Whats to mediate? If SPAR backs off the issue, what is the other side willing to do in return?

[sheclown]

Gonzo,

Thank you for the thoughtful response.  

We do background checks and do not let sex offenders in our houses as a matter of policy.  

As far as the 3rd and Main reference goes, I was attempting to quell a comment that got out of hand.  Obviously, I did a poor job.

Hey Everybody...I think we have our first arbitrator!  

I don't think it is checking egos, as much as checking hurt feelings...

[Dan B]

Gonzo,

Thank you for the thoughtful response.  

We do background checks and do not let sex offenders in our houses as a matter of policy.

and for this, I thank you. Seriously.

Actually, back when I this whole thing started up, I asked you guys if you did that, I seem to remember getting an incredulous response from Joe about it. Im glad to see you are.

Thanks.

Found it. From July 2007

As far as doing background checks.  Yes, and no.  Background checks work on those that are in the system, but many of these guys are not "in the system" per say.  Some have criminal records, but who knows what they really did or didnââ,¬â,,¢t do.  Getting arrested was sometimes a survival thing.  Have we had someone who killed a guy in a bar fight?  Yes, but he served his time. Sex offenders?  Possibly.  We try to screen for that and have refused entry based on the location of the Bridge, but not all offenders in the system like you think they are.  Bottom line - we offer a new beginning.  We canââ,¬â,,¢t judge someone based on what they did or didnââ,¬â,,¢t do using.  We try to judge them on how they are sober.  Sometimes they are asked to leave and sometimes guys are told they are not welcome, sober or not.  But that is more based on our experience with them as an individual rather that a ââ,¬Å"background checkââ,¬? type thing.

[sheclown]

Dan, the city ordinances say that five people living together in a family situation is a family, related or not.  It is not the overlay.

This group of people can live in a single family home.  It is considered a family.

This is what we have done.  Where is the "loop hole?"

[sheclown]

Is there a middle road? Personally, I'm perfectly willing to let the facilities that have been grandfathered in stay without comment, or complaint.

However, the issue (Which keeps getting lost) is what Gloria is calling "sober houses" where they have 5 men in treatment living together, without guidance or in-house support, and in a residentially zoned house.

The overlay uses the number 5 to try to delineate between a roommate situation, and a rooming house situation.

Joe and Gloria have, in my opinion, exploited a loophole in the overlay to expand their business model.

So to back off that stance, and in an attempt to be reasonable about this, what is the middle ground?

Lets say everyone in the community were to go to SPAR and tell them to lay off... what is the trade off? What are Joe and Gloria willing to do? So far, they have been as rash and unbendable as SPAR because they feel they have the law on their side. SPAR similarly feels the law is on their side, and has asked the General Council for a decision on the current law (I have been told that there is NO proposed legislation, just lots of talk).

So, again I ask. What is the trade off? Whats to mediate? If SPAR backs off the issue, what is the other side willing to do in return?

Joe and I have a tremendous amount of knowledge on this whole issue, rooming houses, family definitions, the overlay.  We have spent years studying it, for obvious reasons.  We have talked to lawyers about it, paid lawyers for information and etc.

We know a lot of the players in the neighborhood.  

We spoke at a community meeting years ago and suggested we be involved in the whole "out of control rooming house situation" and I was actually laughed out of the room.  It was one of the more humiliating experiences of my life.

The offer still stands.  In spite of hurt feelings.  I know all of the rooming house owners, I have been in most of the houses.  Joe and I could bridge a gap.  However, if Joe and I are the problem, well...then there you have it.

[Dan B]

Dan, the city ordinances say that five people living together in a family situation is a family, related or not.  It is not the overlay.

This group of people can live in a single family home.  It is considered a family.

This is what we have done.  Where is the "loop hole?"

So then, no, There is no middle ground?

[sheclown]

Dan, the city ordinances say that five people living together in a family situation is a family, related or not.  It is not the overlay.

This group of people can live in a single family home.  It is considered a family.

This is what we have done.  Where is the "loop hole?"

So then, no, There is no middle ground?

I am confused.  Gonzo?