Springfield Community Meeting - 11/05 @ 7pm

[Springfielder]

that's it Matt, I'm calling code enforcement!

[zoo]

I didn't particularly care for that differentiation either. I do think treatment for a sickness is treatment for a sickness. That being said, tho, I am also keenly aware that the people being treated for cancer do have significant behavorial differences than people being treated for dependencies. Some would say that cancer is more of an illness b/c the affliction isn't a result of behavorial choices? Don't know if Proton treats for lung or for liver cancer, but might clinical evidence show that some of those types of cancers can be caused by behavioral choices like smoking or alcohol consumption? I'm not a doctor or scientist, so I don't know.

I will say that I haven't personally experienced or heard any stories of Proton Therapy patients knocking on neighbors door, in a high state, at all hours, looking for a place to stay after they have been turned away from their recovery home for not following the rules or getting "home" on time. I also haven't heard stories of persons being clearly, and significantly, under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, knocking on neighbors' doors at all hours looking for friends who are undergoing Proton Therapy treatment. Nor have I heard stories of neighbors being visited at all hours by Proton Therapy "dealers" looking increase sales of any illegal or controlled product, or pairs or groups of Proton Therapy patients having verbal outbursts amongst each other in front yards or out in the streets.

Yes, people are all people, but certain behaviors, that also negatively affect the civil liberties of those around them, make some people less desirable to have around. And when some of those negative behaviors are already over-prevalent (%) in a community as a result of policy and selective enforcement of such, I can understand why some neighbors (whose doors may have been knocked on at all hours) don't desire more residents who are under treatment for dependency illnesses.

I thought last night's discussion was relatively open, considering there were approx 60 people there, and a question format had to be used to keep it moving timewise. It just seems to me that there is more than one side that needs to see the other side's viewpoint.

And, Matt, any of those adults related to you? If not, how long will they be staying? ... ;-)

[Springfielder]

I'd say that the other sides position was pretty clearly stated last night. One cannot relate those dealing with cancer to those dealing with alcohol and/or drug recovery...however, those people are trying to recover. I'm also aware that no matter what, there's bad apples in every group, but that shouldn't make them all out to be bad ones.

It's appalling that it should even be suggested that neighbors join in on a barrage of calls to code enforcement simply because a place is a recovery facility. If these places are such a problem, where's the statistics to show how many times JSO has been involved, or how many of the residents were arrested? Granted, I don't want any more of these facilities in our neighborhood, but am not going to harass those that are already here and have not caused problems.

[zoo]

I'm not harassing anyone either, b/c people are people. I'm sympathetic to those who have made choices that result in dependencies, but per discussion last eve, which was confirmed as accurate by a City representative, 8 rooming houses are grandfathered in. The rest are attempting to find holes in the "gray area," and raising a ruckus about the civil rights of their clients, while discounting the civil rights of others who also live in this community.

And this may be a very unpopular sentiment, but it seems the owners who are trying to convert these homes to recovery uses DO differentiate b/w Proton Therapy patients or military/college roommates versus their clients recovering from dependency. If they truly didn't perceive a difference, they would be opening these rooming houses right next door to their own homes instead of in others' neighborhoods.

(Sorry it this re-starts bickering, character assassinations, postings of old postings, etc... I'm outta here ;-)

[Dan B]

Springfielder, it wasnt suggested that legal facilities be targeted at all. In fact, everyone wanted to know which ones were legal, so they could be left alone.

[Dan B]

I know of 4 or 5 of them.

What I would like to see is some sort of arrangment reached, where a decent working relationship is set up so that there is some form of communication between SPAR and the legal houses. It doesnt serve the legal houses well, to have a bunch of illegal ones running. Perhaps if SPAR would stop being so bullish on the issue, some of the legal operators would help identify illegal ones when they pop up. I suspect that they have a much better line on the issue.

[sheclown]

The impact of last night's meeting on the neighborhood:

Man walks down street "Hi, how are you doing?"

Stranger answers "WHY DO YOU WANT TO KNOW, LEAVE ME ALONE, NONE OF YOUR FREAKIN BUSINESS"

Why would anyone talk to another when the chance of being recorded/affidavit/video-tapped is a true threat.  

This is crap and totally unacceptable for this neighborhood.

[sheclown]

Dan, that is an excellent idea and one that I would be happy to get involved with.

But, I want cake.

[Dan B]

Gloria, the only way it would work, is if some level of trust is reached. I understand trust is a two way street, but for it to work, you guys would have to throw the brakes on the 'sober houses'.

[strider]

 Don't worry Zoo, I won't try to change your mind...it really isn't worth the effort.  I will ask a question or two though...

Is there is list of supposed illegal rooming houses or isn't there?  In other words, if there isn’t, how did they determine a number?

Were the codes involved with this issue actually adequately explained during the meeting or not?  In particular, the definitions of the various types of houses…rooming, boarding, group care home, low density to high density, what is really permissible and what it not?

It was mentioned that there are a couple of people in the community who are renting rooms out in their houses to the patients from the Proton Institute.  Though these places would be illegal rooming houses per the information given out during the meeting last night, are they OK because of whom they rent too?

Did the leaders of SPAR Council come across like they knew the codes and did they successfully articulate that knowledge back to the community?

Just from the meeting last night, how important is the perception that “rooming houses”  reduce housing values to the residents of Springfield?  And is there any proof that claim is true?

[sheclown]

Dan, I said I'd be willing to sit down and discuss this issue.  It is a start, is it not?

[Springfielder]

"character assassinations"...you're kidding me..."bickering"...and here I thought I was just responding to a post. If you actually read my post, I said I didn't want more of the facilities...but I will not partake in the request to bombard code enforcement with complaints, aka, IMO...harassment. If there's illegal places, then why not go about it in a civil and legal manner. If there's truly a list of illegal places, then submit it to the city and let them do their jobs and not try and rile the neighborhood into an attack mode.

[cindi]

ok, so, what is the difference between unrelated proton patients and unrelated recovering addicts? are we implying that there are no cancer patients that are also recovering from a substance? would it be alright if the addicts also had cancer but were NOT being treated at the proton facility?

[hooplady]

ok, so, what is the difference between unrelated proton patients and unrelated recovering addicts? are we implying that there are no cancer patients that are also recovering from a substance? would it be alright if the addicts also had cancer but were NOT being treated at the proton facility?

The only difference is perception, of course.  In fact, they probably have a lot in common and would be surprised that other people are making such a great distinction.

[zoo]

I don't support selective enforcement for or against single-family homes being used in ways they shouldn't be. Any home operating outside of the law should do what it takes to comply with the areas of the law that are clear -- hasps, food storage, having a license, paying taxes, etc.

If I were the PTI, I'd be sure I knew the b/w areas of the law, and that they were only placing people in facilities that have all of the i's dotted and t's crossed.

I do not support selective enforcement in any direction.

And, Springfielder, my attempt at humor re: the type of posting that often occurs in Springfield-related threads was not directed at any poster. Guess I'm guilty of floating a lead balloon.