Group Home Proposal Meets with Oppostion - Irony

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Neptune misses the point

Nope, got it.

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

Two completely different things, yet the City Council should have moved to pass this, for the sake of revenge on MHAT.  Brilliant.

Any other brain-buster points on why this should pass?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Maybe I'm wrong in my definition of irony but I don't see any...

Situation A: Party A is planning on building a structure on a single plot of land. Party B has no ability to approve or deny the request and is only aware due to a routine funding request, which they can't deny anyway.

Situation B: Party B is planning on making a city-wide change that could effect Party A as well as parties C-Z.

[Neptune]

Fine, oh guru of irony.

quote:Originally posted by Limabean

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

Trying to pass changes to zoning, with motives other than improving zoning. Does that qualify?

Seriously, my irony meter is broken.

[sgrizzle]

No, but "good zoning" is an oxymoron..

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

No, but "good zoning" is an oxymoron..

Kind of like the proponents of this deal.  

Oh wait, you said "oxy."  My bad.

[Hometown]

The whole group home formula is a recipe for trouble.  It is widely accepted among mental health professionals today as superior to the old large scale institutional facilities but I believe they are wrong.

Aren't group homes usually staffed by people who are not licensed and who are paid low wages?  Without adequate supervision and oversight of staff – group homes are ripe for abuse.

Now there is also the issue of economic fairness.  Social services and businesses that produce environmental toxins tend to be situated in low income neighborhoods.  We understand why this happens but it's not right.

I say it's time for South Tulsa to shoulder her share of the burden and large scale facilities with licensed and well-paid staff providing state of the art social services should be built there.

[Neptune]

So, now this is some kind of plebiscite on "group homes"?  Now, it's really not about zoning, it's about whether or not people like "group homes"?

It sounds ridiculous, but the fact of the matter is no one, not anyone, has been able to say what this is for; except to say that it's revenge on MHAT.  One of the strong, truly "good", Tulsa organizations.

http://www.mhat.org/

[Hometown]

Oh, I'm the only person I've ever heard question the group home concept.  

Mental Health professionals have all had the Koolaid and don't question the wisdom of the group home thing.  

So I imagine the group homes will continue for another 20 years.  And I imagine they will continue to be placed in low-income communities that don't have the sophistication or money to resist them.

I don't expect much of anything will improve.

And I'll be the first to admit I don't understand all the detail or nuance in this thread.  I'm one of those people loaded down with basics like paying the mortgage and feeding the kitties.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

And I'll be the first to admit I don't understand all the detail or nuance in this thread.

Literally, nobody knows.  Not I, nor a single proponents of this change.  Literally, nobody.

[disabled]

ANYBODY with a live-in helper will no longer meet the definition of a "family" but will be considered a "neighborhood group home" and will have to get the city's permission!! Yes, you read that right!!

The following is from the proposed ordinance:

Person with a live-in helper is not a family:
"Individuals not related...occupying a single dwelling unit for ...medical care or nursing care shall not be considered a family"

They are considered a 'neighborhood group home':
"Neighborhood group home: A home for independent living with support...that...does not otherwise meet the definition of a 'family'..."

And they have to get city's permission because neighborhood group homes only allowed by special expection in residential areas!

And they can't be within 1/2 mile of anybody else with a live-in helper!!

[disabled]

I think the ordinance  should be called the "The City of Tulsa Welcomes You to the Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance":

To new or existing blended families of five where the man & women aren't married:
Welcome to the neighborhood, but you are no longer considered a family.

To new or existing foster care families: Welcome to the neighborhood, but get a special exception or leave.

To anyone whose mom or dad or kid might need a live-in helper: Welcome to the neighborhood. But get a special exception or leave.

To any of the above thinking about moving within a square mile of somebody with a live-in nurse:  We won't even pretend you are welcome; we don't want clusters of losers.

[Neptune]

I'd love to say you're wrong.  And on some technical aspects you might be.  Philosophically, I think you're dead on.  This is about punishing MHAT and "group homes" through zoning, just because MHAT got it's way once.

If that were my motive, I'd do my best to cover that up with a good-sounding lie.  No one is even trying.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by disabled

I think the ordinance  should be called the "The City of Tulsa Welcomes You to the Neighborhood Zoning Ordinance":

To new or existing blended families of five where the man & women aren't married:
Welcome to the neighborhood, but you are no longer considered a family.

To new or existing foster care families: Welcome to the neighborhood, but get a special exception or leave.

To anyone whose mom or dad or kid might need a live-in helper: Welcome to the neighborhood. But get a special exception or leave.

To any of the above thinking about moving within a square mile of somebody with a live-in nurse:  We won't even pretend you are welcome; we don't want clusters of losers.

I think you misunderstand the ordinance.  If you have 4 or less (or 6 or less depending on the ultimate decision by city council) unrealted people, even if they are a live-in helpers, you are still considered a family, and won't have to do anything.  

As for blended families, as long as you are related by blood or marriage, this wouldn't apply.  Common law marriage, as far as I know, still exists in Oklahoma.

As for homes with foster children, these are specifically defined and allowed in residential areas (provided there are less than 6 children total), and have nothing to do with neighborhood or community group homes.

[Limabean]

Does anyone know who promoted this zoning change and which if any city councilor championed it? Was the mayor behind this?

Sometimes who the sponsor of a zoning change is can speak volumes to the intent of the change.

[PonderInc]

Some neighborhood around 71st and Lewis.