Keerthi Ravoori, a spokesman for the Chicago Department of Zoning, said in an e-mail response that if Heartland's supporting living program is operating as a "group living arrangement transitional/residential shelter," then a special-use permit from the Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals must be obtained.
Joe Moore said that he wasn't aware of any zoning issues concerning the supportive living arrangement. Source.
30 comments:
If Joe Moore were on the game show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader", Joe Moore would lose.
So what are the residents of this building doing? Just breaking their leases and moving out? Are there some people who are ok with the changes? Inquiring minds want to know...
It seems that Heartland is playing with the definition of what they are doing there but unless the arrangement is solely their organization providing funds (or a negotiated bulk rate) to people so that they can get back on their feet, it is clear that they are running some kind of transitional housing program that the zoning ordinance speaks about. So what are residents doing? The bad news, of course, is if this goes to the ZBA and Joe Moore backs it, it will pass. Maybe moving is just the path of least resistance? What's up???
Craig, I finally figured out how to post a comment on Tom Mannis' blog, The Bench - so easy - just send him an e-mail (sheesh! Life is hard for us techno-challenged . . . ) Anyway, since you often refer readers to his blog, I hope you don't mind if I do the same. I wrote a comment on Joe Moore's assertion that he knows of no permits needed for these kinds of businesses and also my view on Heartland Alliances' response to the question. Go to http://www.rogersparkbench.blogspot.com/ for details.
- PEACE -
here is one link to the supreme court ruling that i mentioned earlier.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur25.htm
i have not had time to really hunt, but there is also a more recent ruling on the ada, in which it was upheld that recovering addicts are covered as disabled persons. that case is called olmstead.
but the long and short of it is that you cannot make people subject to things like zoning provisions just because they are disabled, and look at you funny.
Nobody is trying to "make people subject to things like zoning provisions just because they are disabled." Insisting on Heartland Alliance following the same rules and regulations put forth for all businesses, however, is another matter. Running a business in a residential building requires a special use permit.
- PEACE -
Well, of course not, "been there." I don't think if these had been individuals renting the apartments on their own or even under a caseworker's direction that there would be an issue. The people involved have every right to housing without being discriminated against. However, from what I am reading that isn't an accurate description of the situation. What seems to be at issue is whether an organization can group house a number of people in conjunction with some sort of halfway/transitional program without needing any special zoning approval.
Is your read on the situation that Heartland has done nothing more than connect them to housing or are they offering a battery of services in conjunction with that? Actually, I should hope that they are since kicking substance abuse is a tough thing as is being with former users (outside of a staffed facility) in a neighborhood known for an ample drug trade.
But those are just my thoughts. I am really interested in learning what the residents of this building have decided to do.
Thanks for the link, "been there" but my read is that this case has little to do with group housing within an existing residential building. Yes, it did make clear that substance abusers should be considered disabled and fall under the fair housing act. However, the case was all about a group home organization who was being "zoned out" of single family home areas because the zoning regulations were applying exclusively to them.
I think the appropriate comparison for an urban area is if Heartland wanted to purchase a 6-flat or something and run a transitional home out of the entire building. My read of the case would indicate that unless there is some other density ordinance in the city, Heartland would be well within its rights to open up a transitional home in that 6-flat.
I think the best way to resolve this is for the alderman to get the city law department to issue an opinion or for Heartland to reach out to some of its pro bono lawyers (don't know if they have any attorneys on staff) and issue an opinion for the public. If the law is clear on this issue then the residents of this building on Lunt won't be able to find an attorney to represent them.
So know thaqt nomoore has been informed does this mean he will do the right thing?
I doubt it!
saskia,
i do not think you are reading the case correctly. the point is that a group home is not a business, and cannot be regulated in such a way as to deny housing to disabled people. in that case, it was single family housing. other types of ordinances and rules which result in people being unable to obtain housing are similarly prohibited. people who need some assistance because they are disabled are not a business. they are people needing housing. trying to say that they are a business for the sake of controlling their housing is not allowed. saying that they must wear blue eye shadow to have housing is prohibited. saying that it is business if they all wear spike heels is not allowed.
do you get it?
Been There, do you get that this is not housing? This is transience at best.
Heartland is saying their clients will live in the apartments only for up to six weeks. That means this building goes from being a residential building with neighbors who, though they may not "know" each other personally, certainly recognize them as they pass in the hallway - to being a transitional center for strangers. It goes from a residential building with neighbors who have a stake in the maintenance of the building and grounds to being a transitional center for people who know they aren't going to be there in a few weeks and therefore have no sense of ownership. It goes from being a residential building with people who share concern for and are active in the community to a transitional center for people who have no sense of commitment to the community.
No one is advocating discriminatory housing practices but this is not permanent housing here, this is a transitional, sober living environment for clients of a drug rehabilitation and mental health center – it is an extension of a business.
The people living in the building moved in with the full expectation of moving into a quiet, residential building. Transient occupants for neighbors were never part of the picture otherwise, they may never have decided to move in in the first place. When you have a transient population to contend with you do not know from one day to the next who is supposed to be in the building and who isn't, who has a right to be on the grounds and who doesn't. Your sense of safety and freedom are compromised.
On another tact, Heartland Alliance promised to provide 24/7 monitoring. How exactly is that being done - or is it being done at all? Does anyone know?
- PEACE -
I stand corrected. It is not 6 weeks it is 60 days:
The 60-day program also offers wrap-around services such as case management, mental health counseling, employment work force referrals, and other substance abuse treatment, if needed. Participants are supervised 24/7 by on-site supervisors who rotate shifts.
Still, it is transitional, no doubt about it.
And how about those on-site supervisors, anyway? Anybody see them at the building? Lunt neighbors, do you see these "supervisors" on the job or this just Heartland Alliance blowing smoke up our collective shorts?
- PEACE -
"Heartland and this building's landlord may have done the Heartland participants more harm than good." Chicago Journal Editorial.
the zoning provisions do not kick in because anyone is disabled
it kicks in because DLG Management is a business, and Heartland is a business,and DLG's lease with Hearltand is business-to-business transaction, a commercial lease
hugh, sorry, the supreme court says no.
fargo, these tenants are tenants like anyone else. if their behavior is not acceptable, their neighbors should speak to them. but they are covered by federal law.
do you all think that there is something original about your beefs? there is not. as the lawyers say- asked and answered.
Been There, 60 days is not residential - it is transitional. The Supreme Court did not judge transitional living, it judged housing descrimination for residentail living. There is a difference whether you are willing to admit it or not.
- PEACE -
fw, the principle is the same, whether you choose to believe it or not.
Clueless, that word coming from you should be taken as a compliment by Joe!
Been There - have you ever heard of nuisance laws? If there is inept 24/7 supervision, then tenants and neighbors have the right to abate a nuisance. That is, they can have a TRO issued if they reasonably fear for their safety. They can have the nuisance abated until such time as Heartland can prove that it is reasonably supervising it rehab facility, or group home.
Call it what you will, but no one has the right, disabled or not, to verbally assault their neighbors. Especially where CPD refuses to take action until someone is physically attacked and taken to St. Francis.
Well, wow..."been there." It looks like you have talked to some lawyers. I had no idea that a non-profit organization could rent a number of floors in a residential building and use it for an assistance facility for people who would live there for 60 days. I had no idea that that paid staff could also perform their duties in a portion of a residential building as well. Since there is no use debating this on a blog, I'll take your word for it.
Frankly, it is very good information to know!
Just a few more comments as I retreat and observe what the residents and the surrounding community decides to do. (What IS going on??) 1- I am very much in support of the fair housing act and I recognize the importance of shelters/transitional homes/assisted living facilities, etc. 2- However, I believe that the agencies that offer these kinds of facilities have a duty to place them in locations that are compatible with the existing community. IMHO, that means at minimum locating in one's OWN structure unless the shared structure has a compatible use. One would think that the various state and local laws would cover such a commonsense approach but it appears not.
This particular set-up at the Lunt building ends up doing the exact opposite of its intention (which I presume is to reintegrate tenants into "sober" mainstream society). Especially because these tenants were moved in without any other residents' prior knowledge, it is A LOT to ask of that community to set aside any preconceived notions or bad experiences and embrace anyone and everyone who cycles through these units as the same as other neighbors. That is just actual reality. People do not have infinite patience and tolerance for anything---much less something that has been crammed down their throats.
Heartland provides needed services. As an observer of recent decisions, however, I am getting increasingly concerned that they are unable or unwilling to accept that the decisions they make as an organization effect the larger community. Not only am I not seeing any careful deliberation but I am not seeing any open discussion either. That worries me because rehab facilities, transitional housing, etc., needs to go somewhere. For the benefit of all involved, organizations like Heartland should place more consideration into how they integrate their services into a community rather than just claiming their rights without an open discussion with all of the stakeholders.
I am really interested to know if the tenants have consulted an attorney or if they will go for a quick fix and just terminate their leases?
so, when an organization like heartland comes to your community, and proposes renting apartments in the vaunted free market, for people who they are trying to help to get their lives together, you are all going to embrace them with open arms, right?
yeah, i thought so.
and really, these people are entitled to their privacy. how would you like to be on the receiving end of "notice to our neighbors- all the people in apartments on the 3rd floor of this building are former drug addicts and alcoholics." maybe we could be nice and add something like- "actually spitting on them is not allowed, but we certainly understand that you don't agree with the supreme court on their right to live in apartments."
and saskia, i don't know what planet you are from where social service providers have the cash to buy big apartment building. most can barely pay their rents, to say nothing of their employees.
but if they did, do you think it would really help these people to spend some time living in "that building that houses all those losers"?
privacy, people. a lot of this is about the privacy afforded by federal law to people who are clients of social service agencies, and mental health professionals. you are all making a big stink here, but you have no idea how many apartments are being rented around here by people who are just quietly going about their recovery, and not bothering you. what scarlet letter would you like them to wear? d for druggie? a for alchie? how about m for mentally ill?
really people. think it through, wouldja?
Mo, does your husband wear a tee-shirt that says, "I'm with Stupid"?
If not, I'll buy him one for his birthday.
If an agency has a number of clients who need assistance and coordination finding suitable housing after some difficulty, then I don't have any objections to the agency coordinating the housing and even subsidizing it. (And, it wouldn't matter if I did because the law clearly protects these individuals rights to housing!) In fact, this arrangement should preferable in cases when no other services are needed. No stigma...nothing...just quietly integrating into the community as an individual. Any needed services can be obtained by attending AA meetings or whatever program the person needs and wants. Freedom...privacy...self-respect...being part of a community...all good things for everyone.
I am not sure why you disagree, then, that an agency working to house a number of people on a 60-day transitional basis is the same thing as what I just described and what is most clearly protected by law. As I understand the situation, Heartland is providing transitional housing and some other kinds of services or management in a residential building. IMHO, if the residents were holding leases for the same amount of time as the other tenants and if there was absolutely no need for additional management/services for these individuals then it might not be ideal for some tenants but it would be compatible use. Do you get what I am saying? The terms under which these individuals are living there are patently different than everyone else in the building.
As for Heartland having its own building, I think they could fundraise for it. There are a number of larger buildings going into foreclosure these days. Expensive and difficult? Yes. Can it be done? Absolutely. Unfortunately, Heartland may have to look in areas of the city where the real estate is cheaper. That makes a burden for them administratively I am sure but it is also true that there are a number of communities which are underserved.
I am just an observer of this situation and I am interested because I know how important these programs are and I also know that there are a number of stakeholders in these situations. Clearly you disagree that Heartland has any stakeholders beyond their clients and their own organization. But if they have any desire to ingratiate themselves to the communities they serve, this isn't the way. They may be quickly moving toward the point where people say "Heartland wants it?" "Well, then I am against it." Such knee-jerk reactions stemming from a history of poor decisions would be a bad outcome for everyone.
Clearly, though, I am not going to change your mind about the legality of what is happening in the Lunt building or anything else. You believe that there is simply no responsibility Heartland bears because having a transitional living program in a residential rental building is neither incompatible or against any laws or ordinances. I've tried to make the case for the incompatibility and I continue to question the clarity of the applicable laws. But none of this is for me or you to decide. The residents that don't like what has happened either need to move out, contact an attorney or both.
saskia,
i guess i just want to say that these kinds of distinctions are behind the arguments about any kind of housing for any kind of disabled people, and your imagined solutions are just that- imaginary.
i mean, if you can buy a condo in the suburbs, in an elevator building, because you have a kid in a wheelchair, and then have to sue, all the way to the supreme court, for the right of your kid to go up the passenger elevator, instead of going around to the back of the building to use the freight elevator, because the members of your condo association have imagined some economic damage to themselves, then, no, i do not take the thinly veiled statements of the "concerned tenants" of this building at face value.
in a perfect world, these things would all be done in a civilized fashion. unfortunately, we live in a world where people in need of mental health services are the subject of flyers on lamposts, and nasty posts of blogs. like i said, you have no idea how many people, using exactly these services, are quietly coming and going, and contributing in this neighborhood. why should those people have their privacy violated by having their mental health status be a matter of public record, and public ridicule.
people are ugly. people are mean. people are afraid. some people need a little shelter from that. those of you here who see no harm in outing these people, all of them, not just the "trouble makers", are just the kind of people that fair housing laws seek to remove from the equation. your forebearers have wrecked it for you, i guess. but the ugly, mean, and fearful bring nothing good to the table. they are rightly shut out.
I don't know what else to say, "been there." There is simply a difference between an individual's right to have equal access to housing/housing accomidations and a group home/center run by an organization.
I can't make a legal argument for this distinction because I don't practice in this area of the law but I believe that the commonsense elements are clear. If Heartland placed 25 individuals in those apartments either though a negotiated lease or a rent subsidy and those tenants did nothing to draw attention to themselves and truly needed no other services to live there as equal members of the community then we would not be having this discussion. People are objecting to the the fact that extra on-site services are required for these tenants and that they will not be living there for a full one year lease. Although I fully support EVERYONE'S right to be housed, you just won't be able to convince me that this is an equal housing issue instead of an organization demanding unique conditions for a subset of the building. I'm sorry that we see things differently but it really doesn't matter because I am not a tenant of that building and will not be seeking redress of some kind. I am eager to hear from
others as to what is going on.
I am following this story because over the course of a number of cases on the northside I am seeing what I think is a pattern. Organizations who provide for needy populations are simply doing whatever they want without talking to other stakeholders in the community. As I said, this does not bode well for a good long term relations because important conversations are not happening. Further, there's no mechanism for offering criticism to these organizations. I think that is a problem.
Best to you,
S.
The case decision referenced by been there can be found here.
The issue before the court was this:
The sole question before the Court is whether Edmonds' family composition rule qualifies as a "restrictio[n] regarding the maximum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling" within the meaning of the FHA's absolute exemption.
The court made its decision solely on that question and nothing more.
The parties have presented, and we have decided, only a threshold question: Edmonds' zoning code provision describing who may compose a "family" is not a maximum occupancy restriction exempt from the FHA under §3607(b)(1). It remains for the lower courts to decide whether Edmonds' actions against Oxford House violate the FHA's prohibitions against discrimination set out in §§3604(f)(1)(A) and (f)(3)(B). For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Affirmed.
The case went back to the lower court. I haven't researched it so I don't know how it all turned out, although I surmise the lower court probably backed down.
HopeNet offers its views.
The bottom line is reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities, regardless of how those disabilities arise. However, it does not follow that disabled people are exempt from the usual policies or regulations that govern life in a multi-family building. These folks have a lot of work to do in order to integrate back into ordinary society, and that is precisely what Heartland Alliance should be helping with. If they can't manage their clientele and provide access to the services needed for these folks to get their act together, then the landlord ought to be able to break the contract for non-performance or some similar provision.
In the Oxford House case this was a small self-sufficient community of former addicts who were employed and managing the house. The description of what was going on at the Lunt building doesn't seem to match the Oxford case. I can appreciate saskia's skepticism.
Saskia, you've got it right - transitional living IS different from residential living. Further conversation with Been There won't changer her mind. But I certainly has been interesting to read your logical and articulate posts. (Of course, that's easy for me to say since I agree with what you're saying - LOL) Anyway, I just want to encourage you to keep reading this blog and commenting on the issues.
Kheris, thank you so much for the link. I'm trying to put together a white paper commentary on this issue and that's definately going to come in handy. Thanks again.
- PEACE -
Thanks, fargo woman. It is really distressing to read things like "the ugly, mean, and fearful bring nothing good to the table. they are rightly shut out." I did get the sense that "been there" wasn't necessarily calling me those things but in the end it doesn't matter. The end result is that communities are getting zero-zip-zilch input in making important decisions for their neighborhood. I guess I now understand the default position of folks who have been fighting for equal housing over the long haul. I can understand how they got there but I don't agree that should be the endpoint.
It seems to me that if this is their default position then it is important to have elected leaders who are truly able to broker solutions & competing needs in their own wards and also across Chicagoland. This fiefdom thing is truly terrible.
Peace to you as well.
been there, you're drawing a pretty wide parallel between a kid in a wheel chair and a bunch of recovering drug addicts. these people were clearly not going about their business of recovery quietly...if I recall it from when this all started it was their inappropriate behavior in and around common areas of the building that the tenants objected to in the first place and led them to the discovery of who the new 'tenants' were and how they got there. maybe if your kid in your wheel chair scenario was running over people's toes his neighbors would object too, but then again all they would have to do is tell the kid's parents. not a very well-thought out argument to your position.
and if privacy is their goal, maybe the smart thing to do would be to put them in their own building as others have suggested instead of interspersed with a bunch of people not in recovery, hmmm? pay no attention to the drug addicts behind the curtain! and while you're at it, maybe if they want their privacy they shouldn't be congregating in common areas, making a ruckus, and drawing attention to themselves. medical and mental health privacy is one thing, but non-disabled people are just as entitled to secure and safe surroundings.
Thank you Saskia, Fargo woman, Craig and all of the rest of you who take the time to support us by commenting on this.
Everyone seems to want to know what the residents of the corner building on Lunt are doing. I'll tell you what I know.
1. Many have moved out or do not intend to renew their leases. Sometimes it’s for personal reasons, but for others this fiasco was just the last straw. There were a lot of moves this month-more to come. And of course, the new residents have no knowledge of what they are getting into. We don't go out of our way to tell them, they will realize it for themselves. But personally, I feel sorry for the young people coming from small towns. We had a lovely young couple move out a week ago who were robbed twice in the past couple of months. Why them and not us, no one knows. Who knows who did it either? I will say, I don't believe it was anyone from the group home, although I do think the robberies added to the general perception that the complex is becoming unsafe.
2. For those of us staying, we have become closer than ever through dealing with this situation. It is one nice outcome. Who are we? We are straight and gay, men and women, we are "recovering" from drugs and alcohol and not recovering (alright, a couple of the "nots" are recovering from Catholicism and other more fundamentalist sects and bad marriages-I'm not sure what category this falls in). Hardly any of the "not-recovering" residents who have been "Around the Block" don't have someone among our close friends and family who have been in a drug/alcohol recovery situation. We get it! We do have sympathy, respect, and hope. We also know, on a very personal level (not some theoretical prejudice), what happens when the best efforts to rehabilitate do not succeed. And we know this happens far more than anyone would hope for.
I'll agree that we now are fearful, but to say we are mean is the absolutely farthest thing from the truth and we are sure as hell not ugly. Actually, I think some us are pretty cute. Check out this quote from one of the residents (the person in the Loyola security guard uniform) who tried to defend the group home during the infamous laundry room meeting and decried the rest of us as intolerant. She said this about the worried residents in the building!!!! Even worse, her girlfriend thought it was OK to publish this on the web. I’m chalking it up to the folly of youth.
"Kaitlyn said that (you know her) she's the sort that wants all the ignorant tossers to have their entrails ripped out and forced back down their own vile-spewing throats" http://amatadlc.livejournal.com/236711.html
So much for tolerance!
3. We cannot afford lawyers. We pay some of the highest rents in Rogers Park and do so because we thought we were assuring a nice place to live. It was worth the extra money to us to be safe. But we struggle constantly to make ends meet. Honestly we are lucky that we can all pitch in to have a barbecue on a Saturday afternoon. Hire a lawyer? Not going to happen unless there is someone willing to work pro bono. Of course, Gassman and Moore count on this. But there should (and may very well be) city ordinances that can protect us. We are actively trying to pursue this (we make 4 to 5 311 calls a day)
4. Most of the talk on these blog comments has been about discrimination and inequality. I personally feel quite unequal to the Heartland residents because I needed a credit check to even move into the building and I have to sign a lease for a year. If I leave before the year is up, I will be sued and have my credit ruined. I lived for over 10 years without credit (cause of hard times and admittedly, my own stupid mistakes). I know what it is like. I don't want to go back to that. So I work hard and pay my bills on time and never spend more than I have. Our "group home” neighbors have no such responsibility, on the contrary, they have nice apartments, major support systems, and they can leave in 60 days. They will also know our work habits, our comings and goings, and possibly have keys to the gate. Since the publicity has died down, we have seen many more people entering the gate with keys. We don't know who they are or where they get the keys. We do know that they go straight into that back tier because we see them do so. One note, the store across the street has a key copy service than takes less than 5 minutes and costs about a dollar.
5. Privacy concerns, coming from Heartland, are patently ridiculous. They really screwed up on this one. They are the ones who compromised their clients’ privacy by moving them into a gated courtyard, and having them go out for smokes, or rides to their services, in large groups. It was impossible to ignore. Even this building has several tiers that open directly onto the street, both on Sheridan and Lunt. I, for one, would have never moved into one of those apartments, for security reasons. Although I am not supporting this kind of transient group living arrangement in the complex at all, it sure would have been smarter not to put it behind a locked gate that was a profound representation of security to the residents of the courtyard. As we all know, Rogers Park can be tough. It's nice to know that you even have a tiny bit of security beyond your courtyard gate. It doesn't mean you don't venture out on the street and take your chances (cause there's tons of good stuff out there), it just means that sometimes you like to come home and rest a little easy. It's not like we are talking about gated communities in the suburbs. Don't say this is wrong on our part. Look around at all the gated courtyards in this neighborhood. I dare say, it’s what keeps a lot of people here. Now we are locked in with the "inmates" so to speak. I'm sure there will be a firestorm of protest at my use of that term. I am absolutely not implying that these individuals are criminals. But if they need regimented and mandated services to continue in the Heartland program and if they need 24/7 supervision in order to remain here, it's not realistic to say they are part of the free population. They aren't free. Heartland can't have it both ways.
We are a strong enough community that we can support individuals who may be recovering from the travails of life. If you have an apartment building with 20 people on track and 5 people trying to make their way back (the numbers are just for example), and that building is interactive and friendly, their is an excellent chance for resocialization. But putting a group into a residential building, and stigmatizing and isolating them by the way it was done, is just a recipe for failure. Shame on Heartland and Dave Gassman for not thinking this through.
Cally, thanks for the update. The Illinois Tenants Union (see link below) might be able to help you. I used them a couple of times to break leases - and I'll caution you that they're not always the easiest people to deal with in that they can be very slow to act -but they do get the job done eventually. They are very knowledgeable about the tenancy laws and they have connections to legal sources. At the least they may be able to help tenants break their leases if they do not want to wait for their leases to expire (without losing your security deposit and getting stuck for the rest of the rent), and hopefully they would be able to give you more guidance as to if/how your landlord violated tenancy laws and what legal avenues are available to you.
http://www.tenant.org/
(773) 588-3433 is the number I have, although the number on their website is different.
Good luck, please keep us posted.
Post a Comment