Group Home Proposal Meets with Oppostion - Irony

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

FYI, though the original version had 4, the TMAPC recommended 6, which follows state law.  While there was some talk of going back to 4, I suspect that City Council will stick with 6.

Also, FYI, of course existing facilities would be grandfathered in.  Applying new zoning laws retroactively is very rarely done.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Also, FYI, of course existing facilities would be grandfathered in.  Applying new zoning laws retroactively is very rarely done.

Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Also, FYI, of course existing facilities would be grandfathered in.  Applying new zoning laws retroactively is very rarely done.

Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

[Double A]

The hypocrisy of Neptune runs deep. The flatulent Gas Giant complains about "angry, ignorant people" and then jumps to conclusions in an angry, ignorant, tirade without even knowing what the ordinance does. Isn't it ironic? Gas Giant, indeed.

[Limabean]

I would venture a guess that the majority of Tulsans don't spend their time educationg themselves about the complexities of city zoning laws. They are busy doing the mundane things like working, raising famalies, etc.

Most citizens, like those in White City and near Sonoma Grande, pay their taxes, elect their city councilors and mayor and assume that the city will protect their property values.

When citizens are blind-sided by completely incompatable developement, their only recourse is to organize and petition their government.

For the record, I believe the biggest issue of White City residents was the fact that their councilor, Eric Gomez, did not bother to inform them of the impending development.

Were the citizens of White City over-reacting? You decide,, it turns out that the city council, the mayor, the TMHA, their lawyers and the Tulsa World and who knows who else lined-up against them.

Anyone is naive to think it is just about zoning issues.

[Limabean]

I would venture a guess that the majority of Tulsans don't spend their time educationg themselves about the complexities of city zoning laws. They are busy doing the mundane things like working, raising famalies, etc.

Most citizens, like those in White City and near Sonoma Grande, pay their taxes, elect their city councilors and mayor and assume that the city will protect their property values.

When citizens are blind-sided by completely incompatable developement, their only recourse is to organize and petition their government.

For the record, I believe the biggest issue of White City residents was the fact that their councilor, Eric Gomez, did not bother to inform them of the impending development.

Were the citizens of White City over-reacting? You decide,, it turns out that the city council, the mayor, the TMHA, their lawyers and the Tulsa World and who knows who else lined-up against them.

Anyone is naive to think it is just about zoning issues.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by Limabean

I would venture a guess that the majority of Tulsans don't spend their time educationg themselves about the complexities of city zoning laws. They are busy doing the mundane things like working, raising famalies, etc.

Then you should venture a guess that the majority won't take time educating themselves on any changes.  Correct?

It's the same thing over and over again.  If a person doesn't have a clue about the laws in the first place, what qualifies that person to change them?  Is it the state of "being pissed off"?

Zoning, development, variances; they're all transparent.  It takes very little time to know exactly what is going on in your neighborhood, well ahead of time.  

quote:Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

Both.  It is absolutely absurd to be believe that every complaint should have merit.  It's also absurd to believe that politicians will do the right thing as opposed to scoring cheap points at someones expense.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The hypocrisy of Neptune runs deep. The flatulent Gas Giant complains about "angry, ignorant people" and then jumps to conclusions in an angry, ignorant, tirade without even knowing what the ordinance does. Isn't it ironic? Gas Giant, indeed.

I guarantee you I know what's going on in my hood.  All the developments.

If you don't know what is happening in your area, you choose that.  And you certainly can complain.  It doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant of your surrounding and how the city operates.  It doesn't change the fact that you all of the sudden decided to become citizen of Tulsa, as soon as you saw something you didn't like.

Having you on "their" side, makes me all the more comfortable about my position.  Still waiting on a heavy-weight (figuratively, though RM is welcome) to chime in.  Would like someone to explain what this "fixes", or how these proposed changes would be better for anyone anywhere.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

Having you on "their" side, makes me all the more comfortable about my position.  Still waiting on a heavy-weight (figuratively, though RM is welcome) to chime in.  Would like someone to explain what this "fixes", or how these proposed changes would be better for anyone anywhere.

Right back at ya, babe!

You already established the fact that you needed someone to explain this to you quite well when you spoke with such erroneous authority on the topic in your earlier angry, ignorant, rant. Your flatulence leaves behind gas giant sized skidmarks. They're kinda hard to miss.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

You already established the fact that you needed someone to explain this to you quite well when you spoke with such erroneous authority on the topic in your earlier angry, ignorant, rant. Your flatulence leaves behind gas giant sized skidmarks. They're kinda hard to miss.

Another well thought out explanation there.

Anyone else?   Would like someone to explain what this "fixes", or how these proposed changes would be better for anyone anywhere.

Or is this simply, as Double A, DowntownNow, and Limabean propose; revenge on MHAT?

[Neptune]

I am slightly surprised that only pmcalk seems to have intelligent insight into this deal.  She's more on the technical side I imagine, which is great.  

If its so incredibly important to "get something done", someone should be able to explain why.  Something beyond "we didn't know, we're taking revenge."  

quote:Anyone is naive to think it is just about zoning issues.

Exactly.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:Originally posted by Neptune


Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

quote:Originally posted by Neptune


Until someone complains right?  Works as expected, till it doesn't.

The back-peddling morons on our city council that support this, should be canned.  Our current zoning system is transparent, for anyone that actually pays attention.  They don't, they get pissed off, and a handful of councilors decide to take it up as an issue.

Will it work?  Hell no.  Some idiot won't know how the city works, will complain about a "group home", and we'll be in the same place a few years down the road.

Nothing will be fixed, we'll just be a step closer to zoning "group-homes" out of town.

Are you just a naysayer or just a compulsive complainer?

And you must be just the hot air inbetween... Thanks for chiming in[:X]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007


And you must be just the hot air inbetween... Thanks for chiming in[:X]

You're welcome.

If you need a balloon filled, let me know.

[DowntownNow]

Neptune misses the point myself and others made earlier in this thread. This is not a White City issue. White City residents did not formulate or petition the Council for this proposed ordinance change for group homes.

My comment in this thread regarded the irony which found MHAT and its supporters now asking the Council for more time to understand this ordinance and its potential impact. The irony is also present in the statement that Michael Brose made when he said MHAT had been unaware of the proposed ordinance change, althought it had been previously discussed at other Council committee meetings. Even Councilor Bynum addressed that topic, telling Mr. Brose that this had been an on-going issue and asking just how much time did Mr. Brose think was fair to wait on the issue.

Again, the irony I was alluding to is that MHAT's statements and requests for more time are the exact same things that the residents of White City sought when faced with the Council vote of the funding issue for the 10 N. Yale Project. Nothing more, nothing less. But at the time, MHAT, THA and Brose himself argued just because the residents of White City felt they hadnt been adequately informed of the pending issue and that they didnt understand it, was no reason to further delay a vote by the Council...now here they are asking for that courtesy...therein lies the irony.