Group Home Proposal Meets with Oppostion - Irony

[DowntownNow]

In a twist of irony regarding those concerned over this issue, the Tulsa World offered an editorial today regarding a proposed ordinance change that would place restrictions on group homes...limiting the number of residents and their distance from eachother.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=211&articleid=20090222_211_G1_Anewzo970718&allcom=1#commentform

I sat in on this Council meeting (02/12) and when this item came up and I saw the five opponents stand before the Council, the sheer irony struck me like a freight train.

Michael Brose, of the Mental Health Association of Tulsa, stood there before the Council and asked for more time.  He stated that the MHAT didn't have sufficient notice or time to adequately understand the meaning of the proposed ordinance or its impact on the mental health community. I sat there thinking "what hipocracy for him to stand there demanding that"...he certainly didn't advocate for that on behalf of the White City residents who also claimed to not have sufficient notice or understanding of what was going to be placed behind their homes.  Those residents wanted exactly what Mr. Brose wants now...time and dialogue among the effected parties.

Goes to show that the MHAT's and the THA's mission includes no one but themselves.

The Council should have moved to pass this on principle alone given MHAT's past behavior.  Why should this have been treated any different?

[Limabean]

Did the residents of White City request a delay when their case was heard before the city council?

[DowntownNow]

Apparently yes, as well as requested meetings with MHAT and THA.

[LongtimeTulsan]

Perhaps I missed it -- but in the articles I read there was no reference to the issues that were truly being brought to light. Yes the ordinance restricts the number of persons living together. Wescott stated that the group homes owned by certain companies are a problem. These homes are for drug and alcohol issues. Upwards of 11 persons have been reported living in homes of less than 2500 sq feet. The issue out south - there are several homes within a short distance of each other and when you have nearly 22 cars parked up and down the street it becomes a tad bit of a nuisance.

It is unfortunate that group homes refer to those with true disabilities and addicts. They are lumped together and this does a diservice to many people.

Instead the media focus is that any disagreement with any housing is based on not being fair to persons with physical or mental disabilities - the sort that comes from birth or injury. That was not the issue.

[sgrizzle]

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

[RecycleMichael]

I always dreamed about putting my mother in a house like the "Golden Girls" TV show. I know that show only had four women living together, but my mother has lots of friends.

I am against going from six down to four. With four, you can't even have a full bowling team.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

The rules apply to all group homes, regardless of purpose. As I understand it, shelters are classified as group homes as they are unrelated persons living together and receiving services.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

I don't think the city councilors know how many "group homes" they would effect.  Not that they particularly care.  I'd suspect most "group homes" aren't full of consistent voters.

This whole "White City", "let's zone them out of existence" BS, needs to be called what it is.  A bunch of angry, ignorant people, who obviously didn't care how the city works, until it pissed them off.  Perhaps that's the definition of model citizen, but I have my doubts.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I read the distance rule is no homes with more than 6 people a mile apart.

Also all group homes have to be registered and searchable online so people could find them easily. That way, when someone's battered wife runs to a shelter, she's easy to find. Smart move.

Where did you get the idea that the new rule has anything to do with women's shelters?

The rules apply to all group homes, regardless of purpose. As I understand it, shelters are classified as group homes as they are unrelated persons living together and receiving services.

The new provision does not apply to a blanket "group home" but specifically is limited to neighborhood group homes and community group homes.  In fact, shelters are already defined differently, and emergency & protective shelters have had spacing requirements for years under 1202 (C).  

The new provision defines community group homes as those people with a disability.  While neighborhood group home doesn't mention disabilities, it can be inferred from the language that that is what is intended.  Both of these are classified as use unit No. 8, which means that, except in single family zoned areas, they can go in by right.  The issue with the new provision is simply when they can go into single family residential areas.

Protective shelters, on the other hand, are use unit 2, which means they need a special exception to go in anywhere.  

IMO, we shouldn't have so many restrictions on protective shelters.  

[Neptune]

Yet, you don't know how many "group homes" and of what type are already in single-family residential neighborhoods.  You don't know how many "shelters" exist for battered women, and how many "group homes" exist in single-family residential for battered women.  If it has battered women in it, is it automatically a "shelter."  If so, how is that gonna fly when you try to enforce this on everyone else.  There are way more "group homes" in single-family residential, than anyone knows.

Just by reducing the number of people from 8 to 4;  Several hundred people, maybe thousands, will lose their place of residency.  Unless the plan is to "grandfather" them in.

This is punitive.  It has been from the beginning.  Those "zoning" people that came together after "White City", they don't know what they're doing.  Our councilors should have enough knowledge to be able to turn this down.

[Neptune]

One other thing, the size of a group home is usually determined by space vs cost.  Someone, or some group, rents a house.  They determine it can safely and adequately house X number of people.  That's the limit of the house, and it won't be exceeded.  

Typically the place has to provide a certain amount of spacial comfort, but cost is a serious factor.  Since in many cases, the people that pay the rent on the house, are the residents.  The folks could be paying $1200 a month in rent, spread out over 8 people.  What happens when you double their rent from $150 to $300 a month?  They abandon the house, because 4 people paying $600 doesn't sound bad at all.

Many group homes will eventually move. Mostly to smaller houses, and to poorer areas.  Look out White City right?

Wrong!  Because we're gonna stop all that business by restricting where new "group homes" can pop up.  Yeah, sure, White City might get one, but there is likely no way the 8-resident houses can be replaced with 4-resident houses.  Guess we'll have to send them to the countryside, along with the sex-offenders.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk


The new provision does not apply to a blanket "group home" but specifically is limited to neighborhood group homes and community group homes.  In fact, shelters are already defined differently, and emergency & protective shelters have had spacing requirements for years under 1202 (C).  

The new provision defines community group homes as those people with a disability.  While neighborhood group home doesn't mention disabilities, it can be inferred from the language that that is what is intended.  Both of these are classified as use unit No. 8, which means that, except in single family zoned areas, they can go in by right.  The issue with the new provision is simply when they can go into single family residential areas.

Protective shelters, on the other hand, are use unit 2, which means they need a special exception to go in anywhere.  

IMO, we shouldn't have so many restrictions on protective shelters.  

I would like to see some supporting documentation either way, because I've received a litany of emails saying that all group homes are effected; shelters, elderly, etc.

[Neptune]

http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1202._

I'd kind of like to know too.  Under 1202(b), Emergency and Protective Shelters seemed to be grouped together with a lot of things including Transitional Living Centers, aka "group homes."

Ah, 1202(c).7

"To avoid clustering, detention/correctional, emergency and protective shelter, homeless center, residential treatment center and transitional living center shall not be located on a lot within 1/2 mile (2,620 feet) from any other lot containing such facilities. The Board of Adjustment, however, may as a special exception permit the clustering of such uses if determined that the location of such uses will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare."

The 1/2 mile restriction already seems to apply to some of the "group homes" I'm thinking of.  Still, changing from a max 8 to maximum 4 unrelated people; that will have serious consequences.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I always dreamed about putting my mother in a house like the "Golden Girls" TV show. I know that show only had four women living together, but my mother has lots of friends.

I am against going from six down to four. With four, you can't even have a full bowling team.

I thought this was about a retirement complex for old groupies.