Springfield divisive issues

[AlexS]

After listening and talking to many people I thought about making a list about divisive Springfield topics and opinions I have heard regarding them. The thought was, if we could come to agreement on these, most all the fighting would stop and we could all just get along.

The more I worked on my list, the more I realized that this is not very likely to happen as for some of these issues there may not be any agreeable middle ground.

I will post my (incomplete) draft list anyways in the hopes that if we discuss these issues sincerely we may understand each others view point better.

1) New houses / old houses
a) I live in an SRG home and paid lots of money for it, so I expect certain things and should have more say as I paid more.
b) I live and remodeled an old house and don’t appreciate all these people tearing down old houses just to build new ones.
c) I think tax dollars are distributed unevenly (e.g. road maintenance, JSO) and cater to areas where expensive new houses have been built and ignore other areas of the district.

2) Rooming houses / sober houses
a) Certain individuals operate illegal rooming houses and need to be shut down. They exploit loopholes, siphon tax dollars and try to keep the area down to support their business model.
b) There is nothing illegal about a sober house or five or fewer unrelated individuals. These people need to be left alone and not hassled by individuals, organizations or the city.
c) It is just a bunch of uppity drunk people who have a problem with sober houses.

3) Gentrification â€" even out distribution of classes
a) Artist and gay community is needed to kick start economic development.
b) Middle class urban professionals are needed.
c) We have too many social services and lower income people. Distribution needs to be leveled out to be successful.

4) Historic preservation
a) Every historic structure needs to be saved.
b) Split them in categories (too far gone, not sure, worth saving). Focus on those worth saving.
c) Demolish all structures that are not restored by now as the economy does not support anything else.

5) Businesses
a) The current economy and demographics only supports certain businesses like convenience store (singles, cigarettes, lotto), gas station, car wash, pawn shop, thrift store, fast food.
b) We want other types of businesses like upscale boutique, bar, restaurant, farmers market, upscale grocery.
c) There should be a "hands off" approach -- ie.  businesses stand or fail on their own accord without undue pressure from one group or another -- unless there is documentation that this business contributes to crime

6) Prostitution / drugs / homeless
a) They are a nuisance or illegal and should be in jail forever or taken off the streets and moved somewhere else.
b) They need help, social services and our support.

7) Education
a) We need a charter school since the existing schools don’t provide what we need.
b) We should support and improve existing schools.

8 ) Social behavior
a) Sitting on porch in larger (male) groups, standing on side of street, sitting on milk cartons on sidewalk is perfectly acceptable behavior.
b) There should be a neat curbside appeal and people shouldn’t just hang out everywhere.

9) Misc motives
a) People act to achieve power, influence, recognition or financial gain and not out of altruistic reasons.
b) People have a past history with individuals or organizations and want to get back at them.

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

i'm amazed that 8 is even an issue--people have been 'just hang[ing] out everywhere' practically since the dawn ov civilisation, and in small towns it's often portrayed as part ov the charm.

9 is always goïng to be a complicated mixture ov a and b, often in the same person.

in general, i do hope this thread turns into a discussion (and not an argument).  thanks for doïng this, alex!

[Springfield Girl]

I also think this is great Alex. You will always see these issues arise when neighborhoods change and one thing is for sure, they will change. Some neighborhoods change for the better and some for the worse, it is a well documented cycle. As far as motives go I think the most important one is having the neighborhood we live in be a nice, attractive, clean, safe, healthy place to live in and raise our families. Maybe it's just me but I haven't ever heard anyone say "Man, I really want to find a sh*thole of a neighborhood to live in".

[sheclown]

Alex, I think you, gonzo, and MissfixIt, ought to come up with a plan. 

[samiam]

Alex I think you are on to something

Its almost looks like we could vote on the issues

Maybe we can dig ourselves out of this rabbit hole

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCEOignnCk8

[02roadking]

i'm amazed that 8 is even an issue--people have been 'just hang[ing] out everywhere' practically since the dawn ov civilisation, and in small towns it's often portrayed as part ov the charm.

9 is always goïng to be a complicated mixture ov a and b, often in the same person.

in general, i do hope this thread turns into a discussion (and not an argument).  thanks for doïng this, alex!

Actually, to me, it not the hanging out that is the real problem. The problem is the litter and the trash left behind.

[strider]

I got to chat with AlexS yesterday at three layers about these very same issues.  I thought I'd just make a few comments on his list:

1) New houses / old houses
a) I live in an SRG home and paid lots of money for it, so I expect certain things and should have more say as I paid more.
b) I live and remodeled an old house and don’t appreciate all these people tearing down old houses just to build new ones.
c) I think tax dollars are distributed unevenly (e.g. road maintenance, JSO) and cater to areas where expensive new houses have been built and ignore other areas of the district.

New houses are indeed a great addition to the community.  It makes no difference if SRG, ONH or someone else builds them.  I do think that the HPC needs to reevaluate it’s criteria for approving the new construction and allow for some more modern looks to have a greater differential between the old and the new.

I would also add “D”.  There is no difference in the rights to an opinion from a expensive house to the cheapest house, nor home owner or renter.  It is the right of all to have a voice and no one has the right to deny or even suggest trying to deny anyone that right.

2) Rooming houses / sober houses
a) Certain individuals operate illegal rooming houses and need to be shut down. They exploit loopholes, siphon tax dollars and try to keep the area down to support their business model.
b) There is nothing illegal about a sober house or more than 5 unrelated individuals. These people need to be left alone and not hassled by individuals, organizations or the city.
c) It is just a bunch of uppity drunk people who have a problem with sober houses.

Obvious “B” is the correct answer here, but there is more to this than that. All three are correct to some, though often small, degree.  It must be understood that it is not the sober house that is the problem. The laws must be evenly applied and when something is legal, it is simply legal.  If there are issues, they are normally of a neighbor to neighbor type and, like in any rental situation, it is up to the landlord to deal with if the normal neighborly talk does not solve the problem.

There are perhaps times that an illegal use is being operated, then the laws must be followed and the house brought into compliance. But, it must be equal across the board.  It can not be OK to rent illegally to Proton patients when it is not OK to rent rooms to Veterans, for instance.

3) Gentrification â€" even out distribution of classes
a) Artist and gay community is needed to kick start economic development.
b) Middle class urban professionals are needed.
c) We have too many social services and lower income people. Distribution needs to be leveled out to be successful.

This is more difficult.  A mixed income, mixed use, mixed social group urban community seems to be what most truly want.  The best way to get it is simply to be all inclusive and open minded.  Let things evolve naturally and I bet things will work out just fine. It has been the forcing of certain agendas that causes the problems.  No more good and bad businesses based on what social economic groups would use that business, no more saying only low density and single family homes; we must try to accept and support housing and businesses that work for everyone, not just people who can afford a $ 12.00 lunch everyday.
 

4) Historic preservation
a) Every historic structure needs to be saved.
b) Split them in categories (too far gone, not sure, worth saving). Focus on those worth saving.
c) Demolish all structures that are not restored by now as the economy does not support anything else.

I think A needs to be revised to read “every possible” house needs to be saved.  There are going to be times when they are not savable.  But a strict guideline for this must be adhered to and it can not be the choice of a local organization anymore. There is a system already in place through the historic department and the HPC.  And the city needs to use the laws that I understand are already in place to repair and save whenever possible rather than “fast track to demo”. The local orgs needs to back off the “fix or else” routine and work with the city to SAVE houses regardless of who owns them

5) Businesses
a) The current economy and demographics only supports certain businesses like convenience store (singles, cigarettes, lotto), gas station, car wash, pawn shop, thrift store, fast food.
b) We want other types of businesses like upscale boutique, bar, restaurant, farmers market, upscale grocery.

Hey, nothing wholly wrong with a or b as written, except that you should add the word “seems to best “ before “supports” in “a“.  I think the issues comes into play when people say they only want “B” types of businesses and that the “a” types need to go.  Both are needed for a truly successful commercial corridor.  Both are also going to struggle somewhat in today's economy. The Pawn shops can certainly exist next to the fashionable boutique and the thrift stores.  Business that are well run may survive these trying economic times and the even better ones can grow and be here for decades, regardless of whether it caters to the low income or the elite.  We all must remember that it is very hard out here for every business regardless of whom if caters to.

6) Prostitution / drugs / homeless
a) They are a nuisance or illegal and should be in jail forever or taken off the streets and moved somewhere else.
b) They need help, social services and our support.

Again, both to a degree (forever is a bad word choice and impractical) .  But right now, it does seem like it is past time for the JSO to reclaim certain parts of Springfield for the law abiding residents.

7) Education
a) We need a charter school since the existing schools don’t provide what we need.
b) We should support and improve existing schools.

I think “B” hands down.  In these trying times, utilizing what is started already and in existence and working to improve it seems like the better choice for all involved in the long run.   A charter school in Springfield will most likely do nothing but widen the gap between the lower income kids and the higher income kids and do absolutely nothing for the community at large nor even the future generations.

8 ) Social behavior
a) Sitting on porch in larger (male) groups, standing on side of street, sitting on milk cartons on sidewalk is perfectly acceptable behavior.
b) There should be a neat curbside appeal and people shouldn’t just hang out everywhere.

This is historically a community that neighbors talk to neighbors.  People sitting and talking on porches is what the things were built for. While the sidewalks should be kept neat, I hope that people start realizing that socializing on the sidewalks is not a crime. 

9) Misc motives
a) People act to achieve power, influence, recognition or financial gain and not out of altruistic reasons.
b) People have a past history with individuals or organizations and want to get back at them.

Yes, people have acted to achieve power and many residents have given that power to a few.  Actually, that is fine.  It is basic politics.  Anyone who doesn’t think someone’s ego isn’t boasted by running for office, any office, and winning is not accepting reality.  It is the abuse of that power that is at issue.

And, there are certainly people who act for purely altruistic reasons.  You normally know who they are and they are normally on the side of the unwelcome and unwanted.

Wanting to get back at someone who did you “wrong” or won some perceived “battle” is a pretty normal thing.  The honorable thing to do is to accept your win or loss and just move on.  Some can not do that and so we have continuing battles over things that really are big issues only in the minds of a few. And the real issues get sidelined or at least not the effort and attention they deserve. Rooming houses get special meetings while the alley issue almost is forgotten until it is too late. People show up in force against a car wash and the male prostitutes still own parts of 8th street.  Priorities get mixed up and people forget why they were given the “power” to start with.

[thelakelander]

Moving forward, at least you know where certain people stand.  If they don't want to be a part of the solution, so be it.  The neighborhood is diverse enough to go on so move on without them.  

Nevertheless, I do find it interesting that the comprehensive plan could be modified to support multimodal friendly development and rail corridors that will impact the neighborhood are now public, but all people can get excited about is a freaking car wash.

[sheclown]

Tonight is the final full council vote on the car wash (it is on the agenda).  

It is real, concrete and happening now.

This takes nothing away from larger issues and better future plans.

I, for one, have many questions about this turn in our city's future comprehensive plan.  The plan is terribly exciting.