CityView Portal
| We are sorry but no more comments are being taken for this case |
| Return to CityView Portal |
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Jeremy Grenville | 2/3/2008 10:42:03 PM |
| This neighborhood is highly populated with a school nearby. With as many kids walking by that house evey day and play on that corner is a serious concern. We have enough "odd" goings on as it is without unmedicated mentally ill patients in our neighborhood. To have unqualified caretakers who do not have the training to deal with a mentally ill person (let alone unmedicated) is crazy. There is not enough parking on this street as it is and that would add to the congestion. I have dealt with unmedicated bi-polar and schizophrenics. It is not pleasant; it's downright scary! | |
| Sebastiane Stockard | 2/2/2008 8:14:29 PM |
| I stongly oppose granting a Special Use Permit for a facility housing non-medicated schizophrenics in a residential neighborhood. In addition to the zoning violations, this permit defies common sense. Our neighborhood is largely made up of families with young children, law abiding couples, and retirees, with the proposed facility located directly across the street from an apartment building that houses families with many children under the age of 10 or 11. Our children are outside all year round, sledding, playing, Trick-O-Treating, riding bikes, and we as neighbors pride ourselves in the fact that we look out for one another. How am I to explain to my nine year old why a person is, say, screaming at her for no reason or behaving in an abberant manner? Schizophrenics are dangerous people. They have no sense of reality. Medicines may smooth them out enough to cope but they should not be housed in a residential neighborhood filled with children. It is irresponsible and lacks common sense. | |
| Gilbert Kruschwitz | 1/27/2008 3:25:29 PM |
| I am opposed to this permit application. This neighborhood of older homes on small lots has been struggling for years. Finally, in the past few years, property owners have been making significant renovations & improvements. The neighborhood has the potential of attracting less transient residents. “Soteria-Alaska has proposed small, homelike environment for people who are newly or relatively newly diagnosed with severe mental illness….Likely some of the residents will have co-occurring substance abuse issues…Length of stay is projected at 1 to 4 months.” And staff “will not necessarily be trained mental health workers.” Putting this type of facility in the middle of this neighborhood would set the neighborhood back dramatically. Families considering a move into our neighborhood will have reservations about living near a facility treating individuals diagnosed as severely mentally ill. As put forth in the mission statement of Soteria-Alaska, the alternative/experimental treatment plans will include no medication for these individuals. The treatment plan, also, calls for mental health workers that will not be professionals. Included in our neighborhood is a charter elementary school. Being a charter school, no ASD bussing is provided. We have very young children walking to and from school. These children will walk past this treatment facility daily. Documents included in Soteria’s mission statement and website confirm those reservations. Moreover: 1. The nearest bus stop is several blocks away – past a school – and there are no sidewalks on 32nd or on Doris. If the patients would “access most services outside of the home…” how will they get there? Will they drive? 2. Where will patients, family, staff, visitors, and “welcome alumni” park? Doris is a very narrow street. The application includes no indication of how they would prevent parking problems. 3. What level of staff competence would there be to prevent incidents in the area? Documents on the Soteria website indicate that they would use former patients or college students because they are less expensive. 4. The application attachment says the facility would serve individuals with minor emotional difficulties. But, Soteria’s own paper says it is intended for people with severe mental illness. 5. The application portrays the neighborhood as “a residential neighborhood with multifamily dwellings”. In fact it is a neighborhood of single family and duplex homes with one 4-plex and one 6-plex. The 6-plex happens to be directly across the street from the subject property and is the source of frequent police calls. Young children live and play directly across the street. We hope for improvement in this property but that is unlikely if the Soteria proposal goes forward. 6. The application says the property is very private. It is not. It is on a corner lot with no landscaping or screening other than a fence around the back yard, which is overlooked by adjacent homes. The windows of the children’s bedrooms in our home, which is directly across the street look directly into the backyard of this residence. Our neighborhood is very densely populated. 7. The attachment to the application asserts that the neighborhood is expected to be enhanced by the Soteria treatment facility, but fails to state how that might happen. | |
| Alex and Dasha Estalilla | 1/22/2008 9:37:45 PM |
| I oppose this conditional use permit for the following reasons: 1. We do not know the severity of the disfunctions of these patients, the description is very confusing. 2. Staff would be seriousely unqualified, and would not be present on premises 24/7!!! 3. We do not need or want any unsafe and irresponsible behaviors in this community. 4. This is an experimental treatment, as stated on Soteria's website, with questionable methods that will have adverse effects. 5. Neighborhood density doesn't allow space for such a home. The house in question sits in the middle of a busy residential block. 6. No parking is available for clients or staff. This will create an unsafe situation on the street with cars parked in strange or illegal ways. 7. This area has enough gang activity, drug activity, domestic violence activity, child neglect, and an inordinate amount of usupervised children already. We are not exxagerating. All you need to do to verify that is to access info on police activity or interventions in our neighborhood. 8. The building is in very close proximity to children at play/school/boys and girls club, which raises questions of safey of the children in the neighborhood. To sum it up, our neighborhood is not a suitable place for such an establishment. We have enough drama going on here, and do not need any more of it. I very stongly oppose the idea of giving Soteria Alaska a permit on conditional use of this building. Please choose an alternate site that can withstand such an impact. There are many other neighborhoods in town, which do not have the issues we are facing. Choosing one of those would be balanced and fair. | |
| Teresa Eckel | 1/22/2008 7:18:24 PM |
| The application for conditional use is vague and should not be approved for the following reasons: Quotations are taken from the Soteria-Alaska website. 1. It does not identify the true nature of the clients--schizophrenics who are choosing to not receive drug therapy. 2. The staff will be "college students with little or no training in mental health." 3. Our neighborhood does not need or want "noise and odd goings on"! 4. Our block is full of children who play outside constantly and unfortunately are not always supervised. 5. There is no parking available for 8 clients and staff. 6. Neighborhood density. 3201 Doris is not a "private property" It is surrounded by homes that look into the yards. 7. Landlord history of absenteeism. 8. A business like a treatment center does not belong in a residential neighborhood. 9 .Referrals to the center include superior court. 10. Neighborhood experiences with mental health patients who were not taking their medications and killed either people or pets. | |