As you are undoubtedly aware, last night the Planning and Zoning Commission met to consider addition of a text amendment to the zoning code to allow temporary overnight shelters under the special use permit process. The commission also discussed restrictions on the special use for temporary homeless shelters.
In an earlier PRU posting, we listed the restrictions requested for consideration by residents at the Planning and Zoning Commission's public hearing. And yesterday, we posted a link to the background memo prepared by city staff.pdf.
By all accounts, the commission's discussion last night went something like this --
Yakety, yakety, yakety -- tweak! Yakety, yakety, yakety -- tweak! Yakety, yakety, yakety, yakety, yakety, yakety!
Yakety, yakety, yakety, yakety, yakety, yakety -- consensus -- yakety, yakety, yakety -- tweak! Yakety, yakety, yakety -- vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote, vote.
In the end, the most significant restriction placed on a special use permit for temporary homeless shelters is the commission's 5 to 4 vote to not allow temporary homeless shelters within 500 feet of a child daycare, nursery, or grammar school.
Commission members who voted for the 500 foot restriction are:
Anita Rifkind
Aurora Abella-Austriaco
Milda Roskiewicz
Lou Arrigoni
Cathy Piche
Hallelujah!
The PRU Crew has been requested to give a very special shout out to commissioner's Rifkind, Roskiewicz, and Austriaco -- with particular attention to Ms. Rifkind, who most strongly and unequivocally considered the responsibility of seeing to the safety of the kids in our community.
Commission members who voted against the 500 foot restriction are:
Tom Provencher
Alfredo Marr (Commission Chairman)
Joe Baldi
Mary Wells
Boo! Hiss!
The final vote to send the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations to the City Council passed with a 7 to 2 vote, with Austriaco and Roskiewicz dissenting for reasons we aren't sure of.
We will see if the City Council follows through on the commission's land use recommendations. The licensing process for temporary homeless shelters will be where further consideration is given to the operational restrictions on homeless shelters requested by residents. We strongly encourage residents to continue to contact their elected representatives on this issue.
September 9, 2008
Ta Da!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
51 comments:
BAM!
PRU:
Where does SPC/PRMA go from here? If it passes then SPC is out, correct?
Do they move it to another PRMA member church? Do they call in the lawyers?
Thoughts?
Good warning, PRU. This is far from over, people.
As a 5-4 vote (instead of a 9-0, or 8-1), the pro-PADS aldermen can argue that the 500-foot restriction was "too close to call" and that two of the supporters of the 500-foot restriction wouldn't even vote to send the text amendment to the Council, so the P&Z vote is not entitled to as much weight as the council might ordinarily give it.
Frimark, Morello, the PRMA, Marr, PADS, etc. aren't going to give up that easily.
Isn't Joe Baldi a former school board member? What the hell is that guy thinking????? What an ass!!!!!
Anon 10:37:
Relax. I was at the meeting. The reasons the two commissioners voted against sending the text amendment to the council was because they felt the amendment WASN'T restrictive enough. Mega-kudos to them!
One of the dissenting commissioners wanted the city to be reimbursed for police, fire and other services. She also wanted a provision where homeless had to prove they actually lived in Park Ridge before they were homeless. The other commissioner want ALL schools included, not just elementary schools.
As usual, Alderman Dave did a good job encouraging the commission to include restrictions that citizens asked for. Commission Muir and the city attorney were against this, but the forces of good prevailed.
One footnote...the 'white shirts' were greatly out numbered last night. Although, attendance was only around 70, I would say the ratio was 7 'non-white' shirts to 1.
:)
were there any representatives from PADS there, physically present?
I didn't see any people from the PADS organization at the meeting...but that doesn't mean they weren't there...I might not have recognized anyone. One could say there were "representatives" of PADS there...if you count members of the local clergy as "representatives"...
If you at all base your thinking in reality...Commission Chairman Marr could be said to be a disappointment...his listening skills could use some polish too... I found his reactions and statements concerning the 500 feet restriction nothing less than hyperbolic...
The attorney for the archdiocese was in attendance too - and left displeased with the results, no doubt. This is not over!!!
SPC curriculum night and the nasty weather certainly were contributing factors to last night's low turn out, but people really REALLY need to go to the next city council meeting. And If that white shirt nonsense starts again, the opposing side really needs some creative recourse...
Baldi was thinking last night the way he thought while on the school board, which explains why District 64 slid into the financial sewer while he was there that required the recent referendum bailout that will be sending our taxes skyrocketing in another month or so.
Also seen on the scene was Frimark/Morello mouthpiece Jack Owens, who looked none too happy with the result. Wonder if he was the one keeping Frimark up to speed up at the Packer game in Green Bay?
What planning and zoning qualifications do people like Baldi, or Provencher, or any of those commission members for that matter, have?
Skyrocketing??? Our taxes are going to skyrocket??? what is your definition of skyrocketing???
I am a SPC parent for now and have been supporting those who wish the PADS program to NOT be inthe gym. I also represent a company who tries to find appropriate housing for sex offenders who leave the prison system once their civil duty is up. He admits it's not a glamorous job but feels that he is doing the community a service by tryingto keep these folks registered and in a location that keeps others as safe as possible and fits within the law of Illinois. He wrote this to me which was sent to the aldermen and submitted in many of the packets given to the aldermen...
"Thank you for getting in touch with me to express your concern and interest in the facts when it comes to sex offenders. I applaud your church in wanting to do something good for the homeless and giving them a safe refuge for the weekend. I also think it is important that your church does its homework and understand all the issues so no one in placed in a position of potential harm.
There are currently around 14,000 sex offenders on the registry in Illinois. Of that number approximately 162 registered sex offenders are homeless. 55 of those 162 have failed to register and we do not know their whereabouts. The registry does not keep numbers that relates to alcohol or drug use.
I would like to address the biggest issue of safety. None of us want to see more victims and it is our duty to do everything we can to protect future victims despite the inconvenience it might cause some people. When we come across difficult decisions in my line of work we simply ask ourselves a question. What is in the best interest of the community? The answer usually emerges quickly.
There are a few things which I hope you will consider before letting homeless into a gym for shelter over the weekend. There should be some kind of protocol established so that the community is not at any risk."
He went on to list the numerous concerns we have for health and safety - him being a man who works in the industry of sex offenders homeless and housing issues.
He asks as follows:
W"ho is screening for infectious health problems?
What is the detail of clean up over the weekend when everyone has left? How are the bathrooms disinfected? Who will look for needles tucked away so that no child comes across them?
What do you do for people who begin to congregate early in the day to assure they will have a bed for the evening? Who is going to police this?
How are you prepared to deal with people who do not leave on Sunday?
How are you going to assess for serious mental health issues? How are you going to access for dangerousness?
How are you going to access for weapons?
Are you separating the men from the women?
What are you doing with children who come with a mother escaping from a violent spouse?
How is your staff educated to all the issues of homeless people?
How are you going to protect the people who are entering a homeless shelter from convicted murders, domestic violence, child molesters and rapist?
How are you going to identify such people?
How are you going to identify those homeless who are on drugs and may steal in order to find money to support their habit? "
I do believe we need to make an outreach and help those people who have found themselves in trouble and homeless. I also believe we have a responsibility to insure public safety and do the right thing.
Many homeless shelters that are well established have looked at these issues and worked hard to do the best they can but still have some of the problems that I mentioned above. "
This is a professional in the industry - coming from someone who knows, who works with these individuals, and who is not a prejudicial man nor one who I would say is snobby, uppity or trying to live in a bubble. He is out there with these folks and has these concerns. WHy wouldn't the PR city council and Carrie listen to professionals - because obviously some of them are not...
They have a job to do - to protect those of which they serve - now get off of it and get going....
your post is all over the place.
Are you changing your PRO stance now or are you trying to support it?
As someone who's been watching and listening very closely. This in no way is over. It has been noted that the PRMA are really pissed and will be at City Council armed and ready to fight. Be aware and prepared.
anon 3:30:
While I appreciate your passion and am sympathetic to your position I am not sure what to make of post . I am sure 90% of those who read it here will agree with it because you are preaching ot the choir. We are against PADS.
Unfortunately, an anonymous guy relaying information from an anonymous friend is hardly what I would call hard data. That would be like someone typing that thay have a friend who has voulnteered a PADS for ten years and has never had a problem, incident or felt in danger. There are people out there who will say that but we would discount that immediately, no??
As I have said before, for me this is a "gut" issue. If your gut says yes then you can find a way to make it work. You focus on the positive aspects and stories. If you gut says no then you focus on the negative aspects (and god knows there are many).
My gut says no.
Bob Casey --
Did you change your mind? It isn't a tragic day in Park Ridge after all?
To all of you people who think we should be ashamed for not wanting the PADS shelter in our community - you don't need a permit to pick up a homeless person or two an bring them into your house whenever you feel like. If you don't feel that the risks to our kids and community are real then you should not have any problems taking them into your house. Let me guess, your willing to risk my house and my kids as well as the rest of the PR community but your not willing to directly risk your house and your kids... Willing to feel good as long as it doesn't directly put you at risk???
Am I the only one who noticed that the proposal put forth by the concerned parent poster months ago died on the vine? Seemed like a fine proposal to me. A much more controlled one-on-one atmosphere. In my opinion less risky to our community as a whole but again, too risky for the people bringing them into THEIR homes.
How are you people going to feel if some child gets sexually assaulted by a homeless person going to or coming from the PR shelter? How are you going to feel if a child contracts HIV from a needle they found hidden in the bathroom? Let me guess - your going to be outraged and demand the shelter be closed immediately. Well I am already on that side of the fence.
Just because you want a homeless shelter in PR doesn't mean I have to live with one. Maybe your a Christian and want to feel like your doing what Jesus would do but I am not a Christian and don't care what Jesus would do. Last I looked the Constitution gives me the same rights as Christians.
The safety of our community HAS to come before all else. There is overwhelming FACTS that we are putting our community as risk by opening up a homeless shelter in PR. It has to ne stopped..
Is it too late for P&Z to add a text amendment that anti-PADS citizens, close to a shelter, receive restitution from the PRMA, because the recommended Zoning Ordinance text amendment lacks a recommendation on how far a shelter should be from someone’s home? Distance is a concern because homeless guests are not allowed on shelter property until it opens and are forced to loiter nearby. The following homes in Park Ridge are very close to churches without schools, and may soon be the staging areas for shelters:
210 N Ashland (19 feet from church)
204 N. Ashland (19’)
301 S Fairview (19’)
305 S Fairview (19’)
309 S. Fairview (19’)
313 S Fairview (19’)
932 N Knight (25’)
933 N. Western Ave. (30’)
400 Grant (45’)
214 N. Ashland (53’)
400 Grant Pl (55’)
418 Grant (60’)
223 S Fairview (65’)
301 S Prospect (65’)
307 S Prospect (65’)
315 S Prospect (65’)
1445 W. Oakton (70’)
1317 S Prospect (75’)
409 Cedar (75’)
332 Grant Pl (80’)
1316 Courtland (84’)
332 Grant (89’)
940 N Western (95’)
320 Grant Pl (100’)
1324 S Prospect (100’)
210 N. Prospect (100’)
212 N. Prospect (100’)
Wait a second. You mean the issue is not just about schools? You're kidding me?
Anonymous at 11:59,
Heck no! It's always been about priorities and public safety and general welfare...a PADS location INSIDE a school gym merely tops the list of priorities and public safety concerns...
The PRMA and the PADS-or-bust folks have made it crystal clear that their parish membership...especially their kids...and the public at large are not priorities for them...and as for the larger community and public safety...I'm not even sure thsoe things make their list of what they've given any consideration to in their fevered pursuit of establishing a homeless shelter in Park Ridge...with the neon-lit exception being to solicit for donations of time, money, and support from the larger community...
The message has been loudly deliverd...give us your time, your money, and your unquestioning support...and shut up about anything you are discomfitted by...
Park Ridge should be ashamed of this. There wouldn't have EVEN been kids within 500 feet of the people being helped. The people staying overnight would have been gone LONG before the kids came around.
As for the questions some anonymous SPC parent posted from an 'expert' in the field: Are you really worried about a needle in hidden in the bathroom? How do you even listen to yourself? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I assume if you're sending your kids to St. Paul that you are Catholic. If so, don't you feel a duty to those less fortunate? Or only if it is NIMBY?
Because let's be real here everybody: the opponents of PADS (including the self-righteous PRU) are not concerned about people other than themselves. I can forgive PRU for that- they seem to claim no moral ground, only observation. But from a member of the parish? Really? How do you sleep at night? Probably on a bed of money far removed from the real world.
oneilluiuc said...
"Park Ridge should be ashamed of this. There wouldn't have EVEN been kids within 500 feet of the people being helped. The people staying overnight would have been gone LONG before the kids came around.
As for the questions some anonymous SPC parent posted from an 'expert' in the field: Are you really worried about a needle in hidden in the bathroom? How do you even listen to yourself? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I assume if you're sending your kids to St. Paul that you are Catholic. If so, don't you feel a duty to those less fortunate? Or only if it is NIMBY?
Because let's be real here everybody: the opponents of PADS (including the self-righteous PRU) are not concerned about people other than themselves. I can forgive PRU for that- they seem to claim no moral ground, only observation. But from a member of the parish? Really? How do you sleep at night? Probably on a bed of money far removed from the real world."
What, no room for all that in your own empty blog?
Stay in school, kid -- you've got a lot still to learn.
Pretty much everyone whose against the PADS shelter operating from within SPC school gym has clearly stated their reasons why they don't want it in the gym. However, not one person who is supportive of it being in the school have given a single reason why it must be in the gym and why no other location will work. Anyone want to speak to this issue?
my apologies for the typo in my previous post. That should read: Pretty much everyone who is . . .
anon 9:41:
Even though I do not support PADS, I will take a shot.
As far as I know you have made a misleading statement. I do not believe that anyone who supports PADS has ever said that it will ONLY work in a school gym. It is not OK to forget about facts in support of your argument. It is a FACT that the only reason that SPC and a school gym ever became a part of the equation in the first place is because there was a backlash by the neighboors of St. Mary's. I am sure that those who support PADS at SPC would have been very happy if it would have been at St. Mary's as well - that was the original plan!! To use your words, it would have "worked" fine for them. Guess what? There is no gym at St. Mary's. There is no school, nursery or day care center within 500 ft.
Based on your statement, we had a site that would fit your criteria so go tell the St. Mary's neighbors they are wrong. Good luck with that,
Your argument is based on this phony idea that "if it were only not in a school gym everything would be rosey!" This is crap!!
What will happen if they move it from the gym to a different church? Here comes another neighborhood group. We will be back to the kids in the neighborhood and property value argument. Don't you think they know that?
Anon10:09 --
What are your objections to a PADS shelter?
Well then, Anon 10:09, correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that the "pro-PADS" people are pushing the SPC location because they feel that they will get the same welcome (if you will) no matter what neighborhood they propose for the shelter? No? Assuming you agreed with that last statement, doesn't that speak to the general attitude (be it right or be it wrong) of the residents of PR? That the majority do not want it here? Just asking.
PRU:
I written quite often about my objections on this blog. I know it is confusing with all the anon posters. Suffice it to say I think a great of the arguments (both sides) are inconsistent. To me it all comes down to risk. Rather then babble on now, you used a rather long winded post of mine on this issue in one of your spot light segments in the middle of June that pretty well explains my position.
BTW,.. I'm still wondering about the homeless crisis that has been identified in PR. Cuz, I'm a stay at home parent, and am in town every day, pretty much all day long and I've only seen two homeless people and I don't think either ever listed an address in Park Ridge as their residence.
Pru:
I will just add that the post from anon 9:41 is an example of some of the arguments that drive me nuts.
The post basically points out what a bunch of "unreasonable bastards" these SPC/PADS supporters are! My god! We have given all these reasons that it should not be in a gym. Meanwhile they think it will only work in a gym!! I am sorry but that is just not true.
Certainly the way I have followed this there are all kinds of areas that PRMA?PADS/Fr. Carl have made huge blunders. THere is no need to make things up.
Anon@10:29 --
Right. You are a bit of an odd duck. You continually say you are not a PADS supporter, but you spend an unusual amount of time criticizing the arguments made by people opposed to the PADS program and shelter locations -- refuting arguments with much energy and wording.
And yet, your own very simply stated opposition is not at all detailed or articulated, and more often than not is prefaced by some equivocating variation of --
1. -- "It's a risk issue"
2. -- "It's a gut issue"
-- before again launching in to all that is wrong with the arguments made by those opposed to PADS.
Did we say odd duck? Maybe there's another description more apt.
anon 10:26:
To me your question points out one of the very unfortunate things about this whole mess. We will probably never know what the majority opinion of the people of PR is because there will, in all likelyhood, never be a vote.
There is clearly a vocal group against PADS and, yes, I believe if they moved it to a different church with no school there would be neighbors (with kids) who would express the same concerns as those around St. Mary's. I also have quite a few neighbors who support PADS. What the exact percentage breakdown is anyones guess.
oneilluiuc, are you for real?
Are you seriously telling me that no homeless people use drugs. That there is no chance of a homeless person hiding a needle in a bathroom so that they don't get caught with it.
By the way, my kids don't go to SPC and I am not a parishioner nor a Christian. My concern is simply the safety of our community.
PRU:
I hope you take my "odd duck" posts in the context of what I was replying to. I don't think that just because I am for or against something means I have to remain silent on what I preceive to be a post that misrepresents the facts and ignores the history of what has happened.
It seems everyone wants to try and change/move/morph PADS and that somehow that is going to solve the problem. I think that most of these positions avoid the real issue.
What is it they say...you can put lipstick on a pig but it is still...sorry, poor choice of words!
Anon@11:00 --
Obfuscating! That's the description we were looking for.
Again, you take great pains to pick apart and criticize arguments made by those opposed to a PADS homeless shelter.
You are free to do that as you please. But we think you aren't as opposed to PADS as your professions of having a risk averse gut would lead some to believe.
Bluntly, we don't believe you are opposed to PADS. We just can't figure out, beyond a desire to obfuscate the issue and create uncertainty among PADS opponents, what your point is.
PRU:
I guess there is no point. It is pretty simple. I read what the guy wrote and and I feel he is wrong. Maybe I like a good debate, even though I seem to lose more then I win. They never said no other location will work. How is pointing that out obfuscating the issue? Are you saying his statement was correct?
If somehow, in your mind that labels me a PADs supporter, I guess that is a cross I am willing to bear. I have no uncertainty about my feelings about PADS in PR. I do have uncertainty about the accuracy of the earlier post.
And as always I thank you providing this forum. This has been great discussion this evening.
PRU -
I am just curious, who is Bob Casey? A crony of Howard's?
Curious --
Bob Casey could be anyone using that name as just a blogger ID.
If the best all you "Christians" can do about homelessness is put 20-30 homeless on cots in a school gym one night a week before sending them to another town, YOU are a bunch of hypocrites.
hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
fred, we do believe you've seized upon the perfect description.
Has anyone else noticed that there are now three homeless men hanging out in front of Starbucks.....? Didn't it start out at just one?
There is one who has been there for years. There have been two for 6-8 months. The third is not there on a regular basis but I have seen him for the last 2 months or so. They are all StreetWise vendors.
We guess the Streetwise "sales team" doesn't understand the value of protected sales territories.
Hypocrite is so strong.
I still LOVE Christian lite from months ago.
It's been months since this whole PADS issue started and not one single Christian has posted that they are offering their homes to the homeless. Well are you Christians or Christian lites??? Put up or shut up...
PRU:
Your are right about the protected sales territories. I guess they value the friendship over whatever extra money they might make.
Anon@6:38 --
That's probably quite true. They can savor the value of their friendships over protected sales territories. After all, the taxpayers can pick up the tab for whatever they don't provide for themselves by working for that extra money.
I've lived in this town 20 years and never saw a homeless person until the Churches in this community decided they wanted to change it to "Homeless Central"! Their recruiting efforts have paid off. I'm seeing homeless everywhere now.
No no...haven't you been listening? I'm sure all the new homeless are due to the mortgage crisis and these new "homeless" that you are seeing are just your Park Ridge neighbors who have recently fallen on hard times. You could be next! Don't they look like they all have jobs, friends, relatives, loved ones, and/or some other sort of support group that would see them through a tough time like taking out a mortgage that you can't pay for? Im sure they are all living in their SUV's and Hummers and are just dressing like they havent bathed in weeks. Take note, you could be next and would have to do the same...
Did I mention that you could be next?
anon 9:37 PM:
It is facinating to me how different people can have completely different experiences in the same town. I have not lived here 20 years. I am just wrapping up my 5th year as a Park Ridger but I am left to ask a few questions. Where in town do you go? Have you left your home? Do you go to Uptown? Do you ever go to the second floor of the library? How about Thorton's, or Walgreens at Cumberland and Touhy?
I have seen homeless people at all these locations for the entire 5 years I have lived here. Not every day, but on what I would call a regular basis. The Streetwise vendor at Starbucks has been there at least 3 days a week (usually more) for all 5 years I have been here.
Perhaps I have been seeing things. Maybe you can help me with a test. Do you see lots of black people in PR? If you say yes then I really know I need to see a doctor!
"We the People" no longer believe our city officials or our church clergy...they have given us plenty of reason not to. I am soooo fed up, that I welcome the label of racist, bigot, or uchristian as a sign that I no longer want to pay for anyone or anything. We are all suckers--the taxes we pay to Uncle Sam and the donations we graciously give ARE NEVER ENOUGH. We'll I have had ENOUGH "& I"M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!!!!!
Post a Comment