Todays letter I sent in to support my testimony for Faith House. It is long. :) December 9, 2014 Dear Mayor and Board of Aldermen, I offer this back-up in advance of my testimony today at 3pm. Please take this document as an attempt to showcase research to assist in today’s discussion and to steer away from discrimination. I have included links where appropriate and know that you will continue to do your own research on this subject. Today offers a continuation of the discussion of last month’s conversation related to the rezoning of 731 North Market Street, the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval, and staff’s recommendations to move forward. As such, I have attempted to keep this information as well as my testimony limited to the discussion of zoning rather than that of the demonstrated need for this project in our community. I continue to be deeply troubled by the possibility that the elected leaders of the City of Frederick could decide against this project and fail to rezone 731 North Market Street. No action has yet been taken but I respectfully submit that the scheduling of a second “special” workshop for consideration of this case does send a signal to advocates that there is indecision and a lack of political will to move forward – placing this rezoning case in the drawer is equivalent of opposing it. Certainly this workshop offers one more opportunity for those in opposition to voice their objections. Conversely, this workshop offers our elected leaders – You – an opportunity to voice your support for solutions to address homelessness and to state your support of the rezone, if applicable. An advocate’s job is to continue to speak out against the 3 D’s that will undoubtedly be present in today’s discussion: delay, distrust, and discrimination. This item could have been scheduled for a hearing as soon as December 18th. Although we recognize that the shelter would never have opened this winter, project delay is project delay. Please schedule a hearing as soon as possible. Furthermore, there has been a real sense among advocates that the Rescue Mission is “on trial” for their Faith House plan. Comments made questioning the integrity of the non-profit’s programming are a matter of concern provided that this is in fact, a zoning case. If there were budget dollars allocated to this project, this would be a different discussion. Certainly residents have expressed distrust and are further incited when a member of the Board of Alderman continues that sentiment, expressing distrust with the applicant, the process, and with city of Frederick Planning staff. Comments made by some residents have been offensive and blatantly discriminatory. The advocacy community has learned that we need to do more to educate individuals and are committed to doing so. We also recognize that everyone, particularly those who live in the immediate vicinity of a rezoning case, has the right to express concerns. Yet there is a point at which an elected leader must publicly oppose those beliefs and take a stand for increased tolerance and understanding in our city. Today’s conversation may be challenging at times and I ask you to carry that thought with you, as I believe sincerely that you all want more solutions for our homeless and come from a place of care. For today’s conversation I will attempt to demonstrate the history of a very complex subject matter. I also wrote about this subject for Envision Frederick County. I am not an attorney, but was able to browse the many relevant court cases that have challenged the use of zoning to discriminate against specific populations of people. I offer this document in advance of today’s workshop to continue the dialogue in a respectful manner while addressing residents’ concerns. Respectfully Yours, Katie Nash Zoning to “Protect” Property Values The Mount Laurel Doctrine: “prohibits economic discrimination against the poor by the state and municipalities in the exercise of their land use powers” fairsharehousing.org/mount-laurel-doctrine/ Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel - 1975 67 N.J. 151, 336 A.2d 713, 1975 N.J. Brief Fact Summary: Plaintiffs-Respondents, the Southern Burlington County NAACP among others (Plaintiffs), were composed of poor, minority citizens who sought decent, low to moderate income housing and either lived in substandard housing or were forced to move elsewhere due to the absence of suitable housing. The Plaintiffs have argued that the Defendant-Appellant, the Township of Mount Laurel (Defendant), has effectively excluded them from the municipality through its land use regulations. Synopsis: Zoning as an action under the police power must promote the general welfare and cannot be motivated by other considerations such as minimizing the local property tax rate. Notable Quote: “We conclude that every municipality must, by its land use regulations, presumptively make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing.” Zoning to Exclude Specific Populations of People Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr. – 1985 473 U.S. 432 (1985) Brief Fact Summary: The Supreme Court of the United States used a minimum rationality review standard to strike down a law that discriminated against mentally retarded people that was based primarily on fear rather than safety. Synopsis: Mentally retarded people are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Thus, when reviewing a discriminatory classification involving mentally retarded people, the standard of review is minimum rationality. Where, as here, the basis of the discrimination is fear of mentally retarded people, that is enough “bite” to strike down a law under minimum rationality. Zoning Considering Concentrations of Poverty Citizens for a Balanced City, et al., Appellants, v. Plymouth Congregational Church – 2003 Brief Fact Summary: A faith-based non-profit, The Foundation, purchased a property to renovate and operate transitional housing who are homeless and are disabled because of mental illness, chemical dependency, or HIV/AIDS. The property was zoned Office Residence 2 and required rezoning and/or special exceptions. Synopsis: At the conclusion of the final planning hearing, the commission voted to grant a spacing ordinance waiver [the municipality required a quarter mile of space from certain facilities] as a reasonable and necessary accommodation under the Fair Housing Amendment Act, to grant the conditional use permit, to grant the maximum occupancy variance, and to adopt the planning department’s findings of fact. The Foundation considered the location unique and did not believe an acceptable alternative location existed. Citizen groups were formed in opposition and the case came to court. Citizens alleged a high concentration of special needs residents and increased criminal activity.
Posted on: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 18:03:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015