Rogers Park Community Council held a meeting with tenants and Jay Johnson in at least improving communication over the problem of safety for seniors at 1528 West Morse.
Rogers Park Community Council is in the strange and unusual situation of being a community group that is also part owner and part tenant of the project, as the project is technically a separate Limited Liability Corporation, but Cornerstone and RPCC are partners in the LLC, funded in part with $5 million or so of public subsidy.
After going around the room allowing each tenant present concerns, the subject came around to what does the Morse Senior Apartments Tenant Association want as a solution.
The clear consensus was for a security guard, of some kind, at the door.
Also mentioned often was the problem/illegal activity apparently emanating from one of the units.
Jay Johnson said the issue of that unit was the whole issue that needed discussion, and that he was taking care of it.
Johnson said he thought the courts were way too tenant-friendly and that was why it took so long to evict a bad tenant!
Johnson's assistant had earlier claimed it took 1-5 years to evict a tenant.
Needless to say, some of the tenant advocates present disputed Johnson's claim, but overall, the tenants kept bringing the conversation back to long-term security.
Herbert Fortier read of a list of points from the Morse Senior Apartments Tenant Association (MSATA).
Hattie Perkins pointed out that she moved into the building because of the promised "state-of-the-art" security.
Rose Green stated that the tenants have made that request before, but have yet to see it happen.
Rogers Park Community Council heard that the clear sense of the group was a desire for a security guard, and asked if that meant an armed guard or something else. Tenants indicated not armed security, but someone that was at the door regularly, with some authority, something more than the janitor coming by now and then.
Johnson insisted the building has good security, and there was no money in the budget for a security guard. Of any kind. And didn't seem to think a security camera was in the budget either. He insisted there was no excess money in the building's budget partly because it is structured as a separate corporation, and said the building's budget was not designed for that. He agreed to investigate setting up a cable TV link that might allow a tenants to see who is ringing their doorbells. Some discussion continued about other options and interim steps, ranging from security cameras to a tenant patrol, phone trees, etc.
In short, the consensus was that the meeting was a useful step, but management and the tenant association are still far apart as to what constitutes a solution. Tenant leaders indicated they don't know what is or isn't in the building's budget, and they will meet to evaluate where things stand and what next steps they may take towards getting proper security.
This issue must not have been that important to Alderman " No Blue Bag/No Foie Gras" Moore? So he sent a representative.
2 comments:
>Johnson insisted the building has good security, and there was no money in the budget for a security guard. Of any kind. And didn't seem to think a security camera was in the budget either. He insisted there was no excess money in the building's budget partly because it is structured as a separate corporation, and said the building's budget was not designed for that.
OPEN THE BOOKS, Johnson & RPCC
If you are going to make claims like that, you need to back it up.
Show us where the money is going.
This problem needs sunshine.
the fact that Mr. Johnson came to the meeting with nothing more than his hardline stance instead of some constructive suggestions is regrettable, short sighted and indicative of the continued stonewalling and delays that lie ahead.
If the security system were adequate enough, the incidents the tenants have experienced would not have happened. a lock on a gate, does not pass for security these days. There are obviously compromise solutions somewhere between NO security and an armed guard and Mr. Johnson and the tenants should explore those options as a first step ASAP.
fierce allegiance to the bottom line is not always the wisest option as a businessman. sometimes it's more profitable to take people and bad publicity into consideration and just do the right thing, especially if others are getting dragged in the mud along with you.
kudos to fran tobin for refusing to be intimidated. i hope craig will do periodic updates on this story so that if mr. johnson cannot make the proper decision, his associates might convince him to change his mind.
Post a Comment