It seems like all the meetings I go to have an us vs them feeling to them, and this was no exception. Not a single person in the crowd said anything positive about the proposal.Neighbors made the obvious and logical point that this neighborhood has plenty of problems already, and is trying to claw itself out of crime/poverty. However, Mr. Wayne made some good points about having a parole and probation officer presence, and his obligation to the taxpayers of Iowa to run an efficient operation. I'm still pretty neutral or undecided on the issue, because it does have two sides. The neighbors have legitimate concerns, but Mr. Wayne isn't just trying to screw them and their neighborhood over either. I don't see these groups ever agreeing though, and he practically said that towards the end of the meeting.
One thing I appreciated was Mr. Wayne's candid answers about things. Some people there seemed to feel he was avoiding questions, but I thought he did his best to answer most of them. When asked about the possibility of escape, he admitted there was some, and he refused to guarantee there wouldn't be problems. An interesting thing that was said was that this same building was looked at some years ago, but it was decided that the crime in that area was too bad to consider locating there. Many residents seem to feel that there has been no improvement, but there was a time when 6th and Vine was like the OK corral, and I wouldn't have parked there on trick-or-treat night for $100. Whether the problems have just moved to the surrounding streets and alleys is something the local residents would know better than me.
As Alderman Ambrose pointed out, the city council has no voice in this decision, although he said he would look for a "loophole." It will be interesting to see what the ZBA says, and I would also be interested to hear from some of the residents of the Perry Hill Apartments across Brady from the existing facility.
10 comments:
How can Wayne answer some of the questions when it's clear that there will be criminals on the work release program there? Just because they sign out doesn't mean they will sign back in.
He pretty much admitted that. He did say that the farther away they are from the courthouse, the more likely it is that their folks won't make it there. I don't know why exactly they have to be at the courthouse...
The Perry Hill apartments are no comparison for the neighborhood surrounding the new location. Plus - the new program is larger and there are tons o homeless criminals running around John Lewis land already.
I wonder why Davenport One through Tara Barney is allowed to make a rash and sweeping support of this project when they failed to ask the residents of the area. It is so apparent that D1 has not respoect for the taxpayers of Davenprot and dismiss the good people of the GoldCoast area who have made so many improvements there. Improvements that help D1's efforts. We, as a community, really to need reconsider D1's role in the area and stand up to them. Withhold OUR tax dollars to them until they support the community. This is insane. Ms. Barney spoke before she consulted - shame on her.
Why wasn't the leadership of JLCS there? What is their position? The neighbors deserve to know.
JLCS staff were there and helped facilitate the meeting-providing the space and working with the neighbors to have a productive discussion. There was also opportunity to leave written questions and comments and the offer to host additional meetings at the Cafe John Lewis. Holy Cow! Poke them in the eye while they are trying to help!
Who exactly are you refering to? Let's here form the executive director on what position JLCS is taking on this. If they were opposed they would be there. No doubt that Kate's friend Maryellen is in support of this, so let's see where she lands on this issue. She would gain some kudos fromt eh neighbors if she would support them, but continue to lose favor if she supports the project. JLCS does noth av ethe right to be neutral here, this is too important to the neighborhood they own.
Outside of a flight/escape risk issue, another major problem is the fact that there are many, many people who consider the downtown a dangerous place already and NEVER come down here. I know of middle-class people living in modest neighborhoods that won't even sign their kids up for evening classes at the downtown Y because they won't go downtown at night. That image cannot be reversed with projects like this happening. This is polar opposite to the entire downtown vision.
That is true about some people not coming downtown...
I was telling someone last night that if we could tear down the Shricker it would be almost as much of a big deal for downtown as building the Figge.
And if any of those scared-of-downtown folks are reading this, get over it. Everything east of Ripley is fairly safe, and closing the Big 10 and the Linden have probably already helped the west side.
I think it goes back to the bad reputation that SoLo in general has. We've done nothing lately to deserve it but can't shake it. I was recently downtown at night, first time in years, outside the RME and had a ball. If they keep staging enough different types of events in the evening for people of different interests it might help. I know I'm not worried down there, I just don't get out much after dark anymore.
Post a Comment