A most Craven Cowardice...
At a recent city council meeting I was covering, I was disgusted by a level of political cowardice I saw. The issue on hand was a re-zoning request that a domestic abuse shelter had made which would allow them to put a domestic shelter within a city neighborhood which, while presently zoned R-1, (single family residential) is surrounded by a number of commerical, and multi-family (apartment style) buildings. The proposal of the shelter would keep the "house" style appearance, of the property, in fact only adding a wing to the additional house, similar to what a family might do if it had they had their elderly parents moving in with them.
They met 2 out of the 5 city councilmen, and the mayor, at a worksession, where they discussed the proposal, and explained that there was a possibility of some resistance from neighbors, who, for the most part, had unfounded concerns about their neighborhood's safety. The shelter pointed to its quality alarm system, its special relationship with the local police and sheriff's agencies, and that the property was monitored 24 hours a day by a supervisor. Women and young children staying at the shelter, who were, or feared they would be, abused, were not allowed to have guests over, few if any had transportation of any kind. In short a more meek and untroublesome home could not be asked for.
The council members expressed some concerns that after the shelter turned over ownership of the property at some time in the distant future, it would be used to create apartments or commerical, or similarly unsuitable property. The shelter agreed to a conditional variance which would prevent this. The Council seemed pleased with this. I have not seen an issue at a work session I thought was more likely to sail to approval in the full council.
Well I was wrong.
At the Council meeting last night, not more than 10 or 12 individuals from the neighborhood were on hand, expressing concerns about property values going down, and an increase in crime coming to the area. One woman proceeded to complain about the area as it stood, even before any changes were made.
The city council sat there, unwilling to make a motion, for more than 15 mintues. The representatives of the shelter explained the situation, the improved relationship with police which would increase rather than decrease security to the area. And the people refused to budge. The City practically begged the the two groups to come together to some how compromise. The neighbors refused... And still the council sat there, clearly, with absolutely no intention of accepting the re-zoning request for fear of the crowd, but equally unwilling to deny the request because they knew it was the wrong thing to do. So they just sat there. Finally, in what must have been a great relief to the council , the shelter's director agreed to withdraw the request.
Shameful. If the city council couldn't come up with the stones to allow a domestic abuse shelter to reside in a secluded neighborhood, they, in my mind, have given up any moral authority to ever issue another zoning change ever.
Absolutely and utterly shameful.
They met 2 out of the 5 city councilmen, and the mayor, at a worksession, where they discussed the proposal, and explained that there was a possibility of some resistance from neighbors, who, for the most part, had unfounded concerns about their neighborhood's safety. The shelter pointed to its quality alarm system, its special relationship with the local police and sheriff's agencies, and that the property was monitored 24 hours a day by a supervisor. Women and young children staying at the shelter, who were, or feared they would be, abused, were not allowed to have guests over, few if any had transportation of any kind. In short a more meek and untroublesome home could not be asked for.
The council members expressed some concerns that after the shelter turned over ownership of the property at some time in the distant future, it would be used to create apartments or commerical, or similarly unsuitable property. The shelter agreed to a conditional variance which would prevent this. The Council seemed pleased with this. I have not seen an issue at a work session I thought was more likely to sail to approval in the full council.
Well I was wrong.
At the Council meeting last night, not more than 10 or 12 individuals from the neighborhood were on hand, expressing concerns about property values going down, and an increase in crime coming to the area. One woman proceeded to complain about the area as it stood, even before any changes were made.
The city council sat there, unwilling to make a motion, for more than 15 mintues. The representatives of the shelter explained the situation, the improved relationship with police which would increase rather than decrease security to the area. And the people refused to budge. The City practically begged the the two groups to come together to some how compromise. The neighbors refused... And still the council sat there, clearly, with absolutely no intention of accepting the re-zoning request for fear of the crowd, but equally unwilling to deny the request because they knew it was the wrong thing to do. So they just sat there. Finally, in what must have been a great relief to the council , the shelter's director agreed to withdraw the request.
Shameful. If the city council couldn't come up with the stones to allow a domestic abuse shelter to reside in a secluded neighborhood, they, in my mind, have given up any moral authority to ever issue another zoning change ever.
Absolutely and utterly shameful.
2 Comments:
Sounds like a Editorial for the station's manager.
Actually, I'm pleased to say that the issue got our Station Manager fired up, and she did record a station editorial for Monday.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home