I'm running for 10

[Skot David Wilson]

The School Board works with the city on a regular basis. If the city offers them programs I am quite sure they will be open to work with COJ.
Ed Pratt-Dannals is a really decent guy, and now that's he's at the helm maybe things will improve.
Yet nothing would prevent COJ from getting involved in adult education or vocational training and bring in corporations that want to assist in funding and training when they will reap the benefits of a better educated workforce.
And there is nothing the Board can do about things that are made into law. If a city ordinance clearly says students are not allowed to drop out until they are 18, then what can they say except "thank you", and if a bill is introduced to provide extra funding to help with after school detention instead of three day suspensions (vacations) I think they would welcome it. I also want a parental accountability ordinance where parents are held acountable for their kids more, and that would have criminal aspects for parents who don't have their kids in class or who are highly disruptive. That is under COJ jurisdiction.
COJ needs to partner with DCPS more, and even though they are self-regulated, I am quite sure they will come to the table to work towards solutions.

[jaxweb]

I don't understand how anyone making less than $150K a year would want to vote anything other than democrat, unless you have some of the sorry democrats we've been stuck with for too long....

Two words: Regressive taxation.  Taxes on gas, taxes on cigarettes, social security, Medicare - these are all regressive taxes, favored by Democrats, that take a higher % of income from the low income. 

Then again, my criticisms of the Dems should not be taken as an endorsement of the Republicans - especially what the Rep. party has become.

Good luck with the campaign - our local issues aren't the same as the national bickering and it sounds like you've got a good plan.

[Skot David Wilson]

Taxes on smokes? I have two minds about that. One one hand I'd sound like a Libertarian or Republican, and am as anti-tax as anyone from the right.... but New jersey smokes cost $5.00 a pack for the floor sweeping smokes and $7.00-8.00 a pack for brand names, and as a result not many people smoke much anymore. That means they don't "tax" our medical and insurance systems with the costs of disease from smoking later down the road, and are healthy as a result.
So fuel taxes might be regressive, but a tax on smokes, I think I'm in favor of one on smoking because it would drive many people to stop.  This might hurt the Oxygen suppliers, but that would be a good thing, like it has been up there.
Donkeys and Elephants both have some critically bad issues about them, and I don't think anyone should ever get a free ride... but the way in which profit and favor has been systematically allowed for the rich, that is unfair.
Example, Exxon-Mobil made 5 BILLION! last quarter! They pay their top execs mega bucks, insane money...
But fuel is like a utility because without it there is no transportation or many other things we need, and they have worked to lobby for law and manipulate society to lock them in, and they even get drilling rights off our coasts, so there should be some serious regulation that allows a healthy profit for them, but makes them pay out when they are doing great, as they are right now. Like a corporate capital gains tax...
Part of the logic in this is we have used our military and government to work in their favor in the interests of "national security", but national security also means a strong middle class, and not one where they have us over a barrel of oil, and suck us dry, while people can't afford to keep their homes or feed their kids...
The oil companies and automakers worked together for years to quash any kind of alternative to oil consumption, even a concerted effort to destroy light rail and mass transit. It would be perfect karma to tax them to get the funds to go green and build more mass transit that works. If there was true justice in the world most of the executives of most oil and automakers would no doubt be in jail on anti-trust and Ricco violations. But money is the great insulator as well.
The systematic destruction of the middle class is hurting everyone, and to think of someone leaving Standard Oil with a $400 MILLION dollar exit package while we have people in this country in poverty makes me sick. A fair or great profit is fine, but what they do is like price gouging after a storm, which is illegal. They have a lock on the market supported by law because they basically bought a legislator or few, and the rich serve the interests of the rich, and even at a local level regular people in government are the exception.
The rich wave a flag and bring up gays or abortion and say get rid of taxes while they impose fees that hit the poor hard, and I don't know, maybe they have beating the other guy so in front of their minds that they feel the middle class is too close or something, but they stack the deck then claim a win and basically steal from the poor and middle class...... and even in a depression they'd make money.... it is all set up that way.
So we wind up with two classes... a 10% rich and everyone else mostly poor.
So I stick to the original comment of anyone making even under $100K a year should not vote Republican, because it takes keeping a strong middle class and a low class that is not in destitute poverty to keep America strong, and yes, againb, our Constitution does say in so many words that we are one people and should look out for each other.
Again, no free rides, but then again everyone who works should be able to afford a roof and food and a car as well.....
And now I could rant about how illegal immigration is allowed by Republicans because it drives labor costs down while people who have been here all their lives can't live on what wages have become....

There is nothing wrong with fat money, as long as it doesn't come from starving others....
And I know how toi keep the oil companies honest...
Tax their profits, not at the pump....
That would drive market prices down, and create growth.
and allow tax breaks for alternative fuel investments or production....

But that's a topic that could fill its own blog.

[jaxnative]

Revenues for the oil companies are way up.  That is true and I find nothing surprising or underhanded in that fact.  Of course, gross revenues and profit margins are quite a different stats to look at and when you do you will find that the oil company margins are lower than many industries in the U.S.  If you want to find blame somewhere for oil company revenues and higher consumer fuel prices just look at your government and the interference it has foisted on the energy sector in appeasement and payback to special interests.  A majority of our state representatives here in our wonderful state of Florida has let it be known that we are just too special to be part of the energy solution for this country.  All the oil company execs and foreign oil producers have to do is sit back and watch our government increase their profits and revenues through their actions and inaction in the enery markets and policies respectively.  The oil companies make an average of eight to ten cents per gallon of gasoline while all branches of government make an average of 48 cents a gallon.  It must be pleasing for our government protectors and their special interests supporters see the blame directed right past the most guilty culprits.

[Skot David Wilson]

On the gas end, yesh, but there are many other petro uses that they rake it in on as well, like plastics.
And Yes, Florida is way behind in alternative fuels and technology, but I watch the state stuff and they are looking at the problem a bit more seriously than they have in the past. Still way behind mind you, but they are looking.
Part of their "solution" is a nuclear option and "cleaner coal" that sounds like it's right out of the Republican playbook. Solar gets the last look it seems. Amazingly, pennsylvanis and New jersey are recent leaders in embracing this way of thinking and are going in that direction.
I do not, for the life of me, understand why there aren't collectors everywhere. Maybe JEA can't charge for it or state reps can't get dividens off of it?
If I get elected one of the first intergrated directions I'm going in is trying to bring alternative and renewable fuels and tech to Jax through incentives and education partnerships.
I've been reading Mother Earth News since I was 13, and anyone who knows me has heard me spouting what the warning cry is now for years. I think we need a "green" empowerment zone to produce everything from solar to biofuels to even getting a water desal plant on the Northside.
Now if I can get some real backers......

[jaxnative]

The areas off the gulf coast of Florida and any others that have the potential for reserves of oil and natural gas should be open to exploration and production immediately.  I hope that research into clean coal technologies continues because I believe the US will eventually be forced into greater use of coal and oil shale not only for power generation but for gasification as our present policies will force oil prices to unaffordable levels and alternatives will still be viable only for very narrow areas of energy use decades from now.  We have to face reality.

[Skot David Wilson]

To a degree I agree, but there was going to be a 0 emissions coal plant in Illinois and it got scrapped, so we won't have a plant like it even by 2015. The lag that is made by design in clean tech is astounding given the facts.
That is why I think we need to dump everything into solar and other alternatives first, and clean coal and gas second, with shale, and we have perhaps the biggest deposits of shale oil in the world in The Rockies, last.
Renewable should be first, and we should try to lead the world.
Look at Germany with solar...right out in front, and Brasil in ethanol... and to thionk we could have done both by now...
I think to wait for the Fed to do something is stupid... which is why if elected I will introduce a comprehensive plan to turn to, produce and promote alternative fuels and tech in Jax.
The grassroots start of a thing speeds up the national applications of it.
But to become a "green" producer we need to invest and gear ourselves for that.
Could you picture Jacksonville with a light rail system, B20 and E85 at the pumps, a system of vocational schools teaching solar and alt/green fuel tech and a booming alt/renew/green energy industry?
I think we could create that in less than 7 years, to where we could be among the most "green" cities in the world, and making a profit from it.
Dirt cheap energy offsets low labor costs we have to compete with, so if we make so much solar and renewable energy and lower our carbon footprint think of what our position would be if we are the first in a thousand miles to adopt that order of thinking!
Business as usual can't be sustained, and we have to be bold in thinking and damanding in implementation.

[jbm32206]

You're absolutely wrong about the amendment to the square footage and the overlay! This is NOT about shutting the halfway houses down, it's not about putting people on the streets...it's about the law and having them abide by it.

[Skot David Wilson]

Joan, I know we disagree about this, and can understand that people who moved to Springfield 10 or less years ago and are trying to make it like Riverside have a lot invested, but the halfway houses were there long before the new residents who want this overlay were.
I heard that they don't want drunks and other elements there, but they are almost everywhere in Jax. Drunks walk the streets all over Jacksonville.
That law, the overlay, was wrong from the outset. Now what if someone has four kids and a small Springfield house. I'll bet big dollars none of the people pushing this overlay would say a damn thing to them.
Or would you knock on their door and tell them they have one too many kids and have to move someone out?\
Please don't feed me those lines, because we all know the people who support needing a 10 by 30 space per person are pushing it to remove them.
100 sq ft of space is fine. I live in a neighborhood with mostly 3 bedroom homes built in the late 50's that are on average 1,300 square foot. The main living area of my home is 24 by 48, with a carport and porch and utility room. I could easily have three more kids, like many people, which would mean two adults in a 3/2 that is, for the most part 1,000 sq ft of real living space, but if you remove space for closets and where the central sits, we are talking about maybe 700 square foot of real space.
In Springfield, with my house, I could only have one or two kids in my 3/2 according to that logic, which is just plain stupid.
I simply do NOT believe that any of the people who want this overlay give a damn about the people in the halfway houses or their safety or comfort. You all simply want them gone.
HAVE ANY OF YOU OFFERED TO BUILD THEM EXTRA ROOMS OR WORK WITH THEM SO THEY COULD STAY?
So please do not insult me or embarras yourself by pretending that any of you who want this overlay care one bit about the people who are in these halfway houses... the fact is you don't, or you would be trying to help them with solutions. That 300 sq ft if universally applied would make many families wityh a few kids illegal down there, and no one would say a word about it.
The long and short is that they were there first, and as such have a right to stay... not expand or start new houses, but as long as they are solvent and continue as they have for years, they have the full right to stay, and many of you down there just need to get over yourselves and stop being so 1930's Germany about it all.
This is the same thing as Craig Field. The promise was made and should be kept.
This is the same as when I fought to keep Normandy open. The land was donated to be a school serving this neighborhood, just like Joseph Liverman Park was donated on the expressed condition that it serve the children and residents of Normandy....
all broken promises and abuses.....
Oh, and you actually should have emailed me about this because you were off topic to a degree, but since this is how you can expect me to defend what I believe is right if I get elected I thought I'd give it my full perspective....
You see, Dear Dr. Gaffney seems like he's in the pocket of those who have money in Springfield, and even if he thinks it was wrong to impose a 300 sq ft overlay he'd support your crowd because he wants to get re-elected maybe.
I am not swayed that way myself. Right and wrong are much more clear than we often admit in everyday life.
It is okay to impose the overlay on the rest of everyone down there, and maybe to even limit boarding houses to a degree, but a grandfathered operation is a grandfathered operation, and they do have the right to keep doing business if it was considered "approved and legal" by the state and city for so many years before.
It is a mean thing to pretend to "want to do the right thing" for those people who need those halfway houses when the real reason is to force them out of business. They help people back to a good life and cost taxpayers nothing in the process, which saves taxpayers money in the long run....
Where do you suggest they go?
Joan, I know you are a decent woman, but you are so very wrong and seem selfish over this issue, and I hope you would at least try to work as hard at finding them a solution where they can continue to operate legally and in a solvent fashion as you are trying to destroy something that helps rebuild people.
If none of you didn't like the halfway houses, you never should have moved there in the first place.

[jbm32206]

I heard that they don't want drunks and other elements there, but they are almost everywhere in Jax. Drunks walk the streets all over Jacksonville.

This simply isn't true and you're being fed a load of lies...the fact is, this area has more of these places, than any other section in the city. The thing of it is, they (the recovery facilities) are the ones the started all of this, not the neighborhood..so they opened this can of worms, not us!

There may very well have been an error in the 100 sf that's been law for the past 7 years, and none of us would've known, had it not been for them finding that and their efforts to have it changed to the 300 sf. A compromise of 200 sf is what the neighborhood feels is acceptable, but even with that, many of these places are still saying that isn't good enough. They want to pack in as many people as possible into one place, because it's all about making money. They are in fact, a business...granted, they may very well be helping people and I don't doubt that they have...but it is still a business.

HAVE ANY OF YOU OFFERED TO BUILD THEM EXTRA ROOMS OR WORK WITH THEM SO THEY COULD STAY?
So please do not insult me or embarras yourself by pretending that any of you who want this overlay care one bit about the people who are in these halfway houses... the fact is you don't, or you would be trying to help them with solutions. That 300 sq ft if universally applied would make many families wityh a few kids illegal down there, and no one would say a word about it.

Why the hell should any of us want help them build additions? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. They're a business, so why should any of us want to be part of it? I'm not wanting to be involved?!

The fact of the matter is, if they weren't trying to cram as many people into one house, as they are, then there wouldn't be a problem...and contrary to what you believe...they're making a decent profit. You take $18.00 a day from 20 people, and see how much they're making. They have no mortgages to pay, so it's just the staff, food and utilities.

Did you also catch, that most of those who spoke at the council meeting, don't live in the houses in Springfield?

Joan, I know you are a decent woman, but you are so very wrong and seem selfish over this issue, and I hope you would at least try to work as hard at finding them a solution where they can continue to operate legally and in a solvent fashion as you are trying to destroy something that helps rebuild people.
If none of you didn't like the halfway houses, you never should have moved there in the first place.

The fact is, they haven't been operating legally....they've admitted that they've not been abiding by the law as it's on the books now. All we, the neighborhood want, and it's NOT to close the legal facilities down, is for them to comply with the law...plain and simple. It's not selfish to want that.

As for your statement, that if I shouldn't have moved into this area, because of halfway houses...of if I didn't like them being here...is also ridiculous....again, it's not an attempt to close them down, never was. It's about closing the illegal ones and having the legal ones comply with the law. Again, it's not the neighborhood that started all of this, it was them.

It is a mean thing to pretend to "want to do the right thing" for those people who need those halfway houses when the real reason is to force them out of business. They help people back to a good life and cost taxpayers nothing in the process, which saves taxpayers money in the long run....Where do you suggest they go?

Again, NOBODY is requesting that the legal facilities close....you've allowed yourself to be swayed by their propaganda...

[jbm32206]

Here's the proposed amendment by Gaffney:The red is what he changed and proposes...

ORDINANCE 2007-1046
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING AND AMENDING SECTION 656.369 (SPRINGFIELD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA), ORDINANCE CODE, TO ADDRESS THE LEGAL STATUS OF LEGALLY NON-CONFORMING SPRINGFIELD SPECIAL USES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY CREATED BY COUNCIL AS PART OF 2000-302-E; STRIKING SUBSECTION (G)(2) OF SECTION 656.369 (SPRINGFIELD PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA), ORDINANCE CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND RENUMBERING THE REMAINING SUBSECTIONS; PLACING STRICKEN LANGUAGE ON FILE WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES; REQUIRING TRANSMITTAL TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the Council enacted 2000-302-E, in part, to establish limitations on special uses, defined in section 656.369(g), Ordinance Code to include residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of seven or more residents; and
WHEREAS, the limitations on special uses outlined in section 656.369(g), Ordinance Code, were established through multiple public meetings with members of the affected community, property owners, City Historic Preservation staff, and upon the recommendation of the Neighborhood Action Plan and Springfield Action Plan, prepared expressly for the purpose of identifying obstacles and solutions to revitalizing the Springfield neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, 2000-302-E was amended at the Land Use and Zoning Committee (LUZ) meeting to, in part, amend the criteria contained in the proposed section 656.369(g), Ordinance Code to establish that new special uses would not be permitted in the Springfield Overlay boundaries, but to allow legally operated and existing special uses to continue, if they complied with certain performance standards; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to clarify the intent of this provision to allow existing, legally non-conforming special uses to continue to operate until such time as such legally non-conforming use ceases and that such facilities do not have to comply with other square footage or size regulations in the Ordinance Code relating to rooming houses and similar facilities; now therefore
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Jacksonville:
Section 1. Amending Section 656.369 (Springfield performance standards and development criteria), Ordinance Code. Section 656.369 (Springfield performance standards and development criteria), Ordinance Code, is hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 656. ZONING CODE.
* * *
PART 3. SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS.
* * *
SUBPART I. SPRINGFIELD ZONING OVERLAY AND HISTORIC DISTRICT REGULATIONS
* * *
Sec. 656.369. Springfield performance standards and development criteria.
* * *
(g) Special uses. Special uses are residential/institutional uses that are no longer permitted in the districts. Such uses may continue if they comply with the standards and criteria of this subsection within one year from the effective date of this legislation. The following uses are identified as special uses: residential treatment facilities, rooming houses, emergency shelter homes, group care homes, and community residential homes of seven or more residents. Within 90 days of the effective date of this ordinance, all special use facilities shall provide the following information to the Director:
(1) Information showing or depicting the accurate square footage of the facility’s livable interior space, as it existed on December 21, 2000; and
(2) Licensure or permit information from the relevant State agency showing continuous operation of the facility from prior to December 21, 2000; and
(3) License or permit information or affidavit if such information is not available as to number of residents authorized to legally occupy the licensed or permitted facility on or before December 21, 2000; and
(4) Number of persons considered by the facility to be occupying the facility as full-time staff and/or their immediate family members. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Ordinance Code, the minimum square footage allowed per occupant shall be 200 square feet of livable space within the facility. Any special use facility claiming that it is unable to meet the minimum square footage requirement shall demonstrate to the Zoning Administrator that application of this requirement will make such facility economically non-viable. In such instance, the minimum square footage requirement shall not be applied to such facility. The facility operator may appeal an adverse determination by the Zoning Administrator to the Director, whose decision shall be considered the final action of the City. tThose special use facilities which provide the above information in a timely manner and meet the minimum square footage requirement or are exempted as stated herein are considered legally non-conforming and shall be allowed to continue operation until such time as the legally non-conforming status ceases, as provided in this Chapter. As relating to the information submitted as required in this subsection, special use facilities shall not expand the square footage of the facility, relocate the facility or increase the number of licensed residents in the facility. Additionally, if a facility increases the number of staff, including immediate family members, the facility shall notify the Director within 90 days of such increase.
The city shall through annual inspections also ensure that such uses comply with the following standards, and if the property is not in compliance with the standards after a reasonable time allowed for correction of the violation, if the facility fails to timely submit the information required herein, or if the special use intensifies, expands, relocates or fails to report increases in staff in a timely manner, the special use shall not be allowed to continue. .* * *
Section 2. Subsection (g)(2) of Section 656.369 (Springfield performance standards and development criteria), Ordinance Code is hereby stricken in its entirety and the remaining subsections shall be renumbered accordingly. The stricken subsection (g)(2) of Section 656.369, Ordinance Code is hereby placed on file with the Office of Legislative Services
Section 3. Transmittal to Municipal Code Corporation. The Legislative Services Division is hereby directed to transmit the changes contemplated in this Ordinance to the Municipal Code Corporation for updating the relevant sections of the Code.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective upon signature by the Mayor or upon becoming effective without the Mayor’s signature.

[Skot David Wilson]

The fact of the matter is, if they weren't trying to cram as many people into one house, as they are, then there wouldn't be a problem...and contrary to what you believe...they're making a decent profit. You take $18.00 a day from 20 people, and see how much they're making. They have no mortgages to pay, so it's just the staff, food and utilities.

There are more like 14-18 people at each house, but let's go with $18 a day times 20 over a month... say $10,000 a month.
That's no more than $120,000 a year a house can make, minus staff.... say two people, so let's take $40,000 each away for that...
$40,000 profit a year, minus repairs, utilities, insurances, fees....

They operate on margins, and make enough profit to qualify as living below the poverty line if that is the only thing an owner of a house makes.

The law was wrong when it was put into effect and it is still wrong now.

This simply isn't true and you're being fed a load of lies...the fact is, this area has more of these places, than any other section in the city. The thing of it is, they (the recovery facilities) are the ones the started all of this, not the neighborhood..so they opened this can of worms, not us!
So if I move to stark and here are more prisons there, should I move there then complain about prisons... no no wait, maybe if I move to Ellis and Beaver I should move there then complain about all tyhe trucks and all the homeless people pushing shopping carts.... no no wait....
maybe I should move to the river and complain about the water.....
Maybe they said something because the law was stupid, mean, and wrong...
I simply don't believe the Despain crowd is out to protect anyone but themselves. If they are so concerned then why aren't they involved in other issues....?
Simple fact... they were there when you all moved in and now it looks like things are getting better you all want them gone.
It is the same mindset that removed American Indians from their land......
I met with and talked to both sides down there a few times before I formed an opinion, and got the scoop from both sides.
I can appreciate that they get a few people who relapse, but ya know.... out here in the working class burbs, there are drunks and drugs everywhere. I got rid of crack houses and can't get much help from the cops with a few that remain, and drunks and shopping cart can collectors are everywhere.
I have two nearby vacant houses that are on the market and have chased away about 12 drunks or homeless in the past year....one house is right next door to me.

I am sorry, but the overlay is designed to get rid of them, and you can't tell me that all families would be legal if it was strictly enforced.
200 is not a compromise because it still would hurt them, and force them out of business.
DO YOU REALLY THINK A HALFWAY HOUSE OWNER IS REALLY OUT TO MAKE A PROFIT BY RUNNING ONE???
I can think of many more ventures that would bring in more money, including renting it as a single family dwelling.
So please please please understand my point, and understand also how I would vote if elected.
They were there first, they operate without many problems, and many of the residents are actually an asset that would chase crime away....
they operate without government funding, and I'll bet many of those wanting to get rid of them got government money to fix up those old houses..... so they cost "me" less that many of you do... in fact, they FIX the problem, which means cops and jails become a thing of the past with them, and they stop costing me money as a taxpayer.... in fact, they start contributing and as such help all of us.

Maybe you all can do some creative house and property trades and they can all go on one street, and you can pass a law saying that they can't walk down your street so they are out of sight/out of mind..... would that make you all happy?
They can have one path they have to walk to the bus stop and if they leave that you can arrest and shoot them for being humans with problems who live in a real world but made the mistake of being visible to you.... oh, unless you need them to do repairs or restorations on your home, then you can treat them like Mexicans at a Home Depot.

And that 200 sq ft "compromise" if like....
okay, I won't shoot you dead, I'll just mortally wound you.........

Sorry, you can't sell me on it, and they didn't sell me on why they should stay.... the situation sold itself because I can be objective about what is right and what is wrong.

Personally, I think they should have a designated area, like one block off a main drag with bus lines, where there are even more of these places.
It just feels like I'm watching someone who stopped to help at a traffic accident and then see a big truck coming along with someone who wants to run everybody over because they feel like they are better than everyone else. It's like many of you have a limited or selective sense of humanity....
I feel sad for that view of things, and for those who hold it....

And if you are so concerned about the overlay, then why are you not upset at them housing inmates 3 to a cell and the standards in the military?
How is that any different?


[/b

[jbm32206]

As far as the "DeSpain crowd", as you put it...of which is SPAR council...we happen to be involved in a great deal, this is only one issue.

I'm not trying to sell you anything, other than to have you actually see both sides...which you clearly refuse to do. You make it impossible for people to have reasonable discussions when you set your mind on something and fail to see both sides. If it pleases you to think that we, the neighborhood are trying to close them down, then by all means, stick with the incorrect information and assumptions...you're outrageous comparisions show that I'll get nowhere in trying to have a discussion with you about this.

[Skot David Wilson]

Joan, I've been at almost every council meeting where they all spoke, and have overheard members of that "crowd" make snide and hurtful comments that reinforce my position that they just want them gone. I can see some of your point, but from what I've seen and understand the overlay will, in fact, close them or force them to move.
I really don't think that everyone is so cold as to want them closed, although some of that "crowd" does because I have heard them talking in the hallways among each other. I think you all just want them gone to somewhere else....
I am willing to listen, so make a real point that tells me that they can function with even a 200 square foot overlay and I'll admit I am wrong, and that they are as well.
Show me where anyone has been forced to "suffer" because of being "overcrowded" and I will shut up.
The fact is you can't show that, because it isn't true.
They were there first, and when you all moved there you accepted them as they are and were. They have a grandfathered right to continue as they have been for years, doing what they do, and as i said, at 20 full time payers, and that isn't the case, with two employees and expenses I think any halfway house would be lucky to make $20,000 profit a year.
I think they do it because they believe in what they are doing more than anything else, because if they wanted to they could just sell and make a mint on their property and wouldn't have to deal with the grind of what it is that they do.
So to paint these houses as being owned by greedy people sucking a living off of recovering drunks is way unfair, and isn't true.
$18 a day is so nominal it isn't funny.
I offer this compromise.....
Allow a max at 100 square foot for any halfway or 3/4 house that has been operating since 2002 or whenever it was....
Make sure they don't exceed that number of residents, and make sure they continue to maintain fire safety and health standards they have had to since they started...
don't allow any new ones.....
and be sure you investigate every single home in the overlay area to insure no residents are in excess of the overlay....
and if they were there before the overlay started, they can stay as they are, but if a family of five with a 1,600 sq ft house decides to have another child tell them they are not allowed to keep that baby there....

You see, you haven't said anything to me except they are not in compliance with the overlay, which is a bad law to begin with.
Prove your point by logic and example..... can you?
That is what I'm waiting for, for you to tell me where I am wrong and not just telling me I don't understand and am wrong...
try showing me where with logic.
Prove to me and everyone reading this where I or they are wrong.
DO NOT just point to a bad law or a bad bill that is designed to force them out or to close.

[jbm32206]

IMO, it's just plain ridiculous to say that the law is bad....it's only bad because certain people don't want to comply. So with a mindset like that, there's nothing anyone could say to make a case for what's right or wrong with these facilities. Most of these places, incuding the legal ones, have not been abiding by the law.

However, as I said, with the mindset that a law is bad, then I suppose in the abstract ways in which you reference points, then why should people obey traffic laws, if indeed, they feel it's bad? Why should people obey the laws pertaining to deadly force, if they feel the law is wrong? If you feel it's wrong, then go about changing it the legal and appropriate way. I said before, it was the owners of these facilities that opened this can of worms and requested the changes, and the neighborhood organizations and community members have every right to have their input.

As for the overlay, it doesn't pertain to residential households, meaning, persons that are related. Therefore, families could have as many people living under one roof...and being related is a major difference than adult men and women that aren't, being crammed into a house. So your argument with that point is void of merit.

I already know that it wouldn't matter what I said, what examples I offered, that it would make no difference with you and have resigned myself to the fact.