-For those unacquainted with the situation, Salt Lake City announced that it was placing four "resource centers" at a variety of locations within the city limits. This was without any preliminary warning or public hearings. The various communities voiced their outrage, but were told to make the best of it.
February 25, 2017
What we hope will be our final note.
Our neighborhood has been growing funds with the intention of reimbursing the city should it walk away from the site purchase.
One member suggested that we need to give the money to city since we obviously won the day.
This is our response to that suggestion:
We think we should wait and see what the city does about the property first. Attorneys are going over the contracts. We are sorry that We have a mistrust of this leadership, but the Mayor's tone leads us to believe if there was something she could do about our resistance She would.
So let's continue the fund, but let's also eye the city's actions and intentions.
The Mayor's comment: "The Majority of the Council and I were standing strong on the selection of the four sites... " contains no note of contrition, instead it is a grudging admission that the decision was taken out of her hands by "a collaborative effort". Even when she is choked up and says "it's been hard" it only indicates it was hard for her with no acknowledgement of the hardship imposed on this neighborhood . Later in the conference even the Speaker of the House when asked if "Sugar House broke you guys" said flatly "no they didn't". These leaders are unwilling to admit that this neighborhood did the due diligence that they sidestepped. They only want to pat each other on the back for a job well done. We also have trust issues with the Mayor's handling of finances. We do not want to reward an unrepentant Mayor for lack of compassion for this neighborhood. So be wary. Depending how this shakes out, perhaps we could see that the money aided the homeless instead.
Just our thoughts.
Kurt & Charlotte Ovard
February 24, 2017
Today the City and its Mayor announced that it was changing it's strategy and reducing the number of shelters to two. Sugar House is off the table for now.http://kutv.com/news/local/state-officials-and-salt-lake-county-and-city-mayors-announce-next-steps-in-homeless-plan
February 17, 2017:
The City Council and Mayor's office are serving up meetings right and left sometimes twice in a night. Not for the purpose of letting its residents share their fears and concerns of the hastily chosen Sugar House site, but to TELL us why our fears and concerns make us nasty heartless people, while the City helps its developer friends shed the unsightly homeless. This is not altruism, and don't let the city convince you it is. Our only consolation is that the Mayor will probably be a one term disaster. We will not move out, just so we can get out the vote to oust this arrogant little dictator and her minions. For those who did not see this on television here is a link to a quick clip. This is what our leaders want to share with those of us who do not have the deep pockets to resist them: http://www.drphil.com/videos/pregnant-heroin-addict-lets-dr-phil-cameras-follow-her-on-a-drug-run/
Additional Update for February 6th: We have been notified that the zoning meeting is actually slated for February 13 not the 6th. I hope we just haven't been fed a red herring! It would be great fun to find out they mis-directed us just to push the agenday through! We will know in a week.
February 6 News: There will be another meeting at Sprague Library this evening at 6:00pm. Let's hope we have a good turnout. In other news, The City Council and the Mayor receive the award they truly deserve! Not that they will take notice, but I loved it: http://kutv.com/news/local/slcs-closed-process-on-new-homeless-shelters-earns-black-hole-award-for-mayor-council
February 1 News
KUTV2 ran this story after the Mayor's state of the city speech. What is even better, they ran the results of the TV station's request of a report card on the Mayor's 1st year. The Mayor keeps saying she is listening, but she is not acting like it affects her much. Perhaps the 70% D's & F's will get her attention! No matter how long one has labored on a mistake, it remains a mistake. One must correct the mistake. http://kutv.com/news/local/biskupski-admits-to-errors-in-state-of-city-speech
January 27th Commentary:
Charlotte has been sending messages to the Salt Lake City Council and the Mayor's office for a couple of days now and it is so well thought, I had to share here!
Yesterday I wrote and referred to Maslow's Hierarchy of Psychological Needs pyramid. After sending my missive, I decided to refresh my memory of the basic needs of humans and realized that our opposition to the Simpson Avenue site became perfectly clear. The City is trying to violate our basic need of safety which is the second tier from the bottom of the pyramid. No wonder we are so anxious by your very flawed decision!!! You are forcing US at our expense to allow you to meet the needs of the homeless by snatching away our basic needs. You are willing to sacrifice our basic need for safety for your dogged ill-placed decision. Where, pray tell, is your conscience and humanity? I strongly dislike using innocent people (or animals for that matter) for someone else's gain - whether you think it may be for the greater good or not. It is especially NOT for the greater good when other options for the homeless are readily available.
In case you are wondering, here is information defining SAFETY, the second tier of Maslow's Hierarchy of Psychological Needs pyramid:
Safety and Security needs include:
Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts
So let's review just how a homeless "resource" center on Simpson
Avenue would affect our BASIC need for safety:
Personal security - It is pretty hard to feel personally secure when you feel that the homeless element and their contacts forcibly imported into your life could rob, beat, rape, or vandalize your property at any time. Your home could be invaded, robbed or trashed while you are a work.
Financial security - A homeless shelter could affect and threaten our financial security on so many levels with lowered property values, possibly being robbed, costs for installing expensive home security systems, guard dogs, security fencing, and additional door locks for house, sheds, and garage.
Health and well-being - The homeless element is feared for violent behavior, drunken and drug related behavior with the drug trade always close by. Some diseases could arrive with them since they do not often get proper health maintenance measures such as vaccines and often have great difficulty remaining clean. Should we have to fear for our safety if we are accosted by them? And I am pretty sure, if they live just feet away from us, we will meet them at some point. Is it fair for us to take on this fear for our safety due to your lack of responsible planning for a better, more appropriate site?
Safety net - It would be pretty difficult to have the feeling of a safety net when the homeless "resource" site would literally be feet away from our homes, sidewalks, parks, etc.
Through negligence the homeless problem has festered. Please do NOT compromise our basic need of Safety by forcing us into a very hazardous situation and risking our security. We should NOT be forced to deal with your problem because you carelessly chose the WRONG location.
Sincerely,
Charlotte 
Werner Ovard
Personal security
Financial security
Health and well-being
Safety net against accidents/illness and their adverse impacts
Through negligence the homeless problem has festered. Please do NOT compromise our basic need of Safety by forcing us into a very hazardous situation and risking our security. We should NOT be forced to deal with your problem because you carelessly chose the WRONG location.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Werner Ovard
Werner OvardJanuary 23rd NEWS UPDATE:
Charlotte has always maintained that the multi-site model just cannot be a cost effective way to operate. This story agrees and points out the "fantasy" that the City is trying to spin. For some reason the powers that be think that just by saying it is so makes it true. I think in the old propaganda days we referred to this as "The Big Lie" approach. If you say something so outrageous and untrue long enough and loud enough it will be accepted as truth. Please follow the lik below:
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=42939671&nid=148&title=driven-by-politics-homelessness-expert-slams-salt-lakes-plan-for-4-resource-centers
January 21st Noon:
I have decided to post an excellent letter that outlines what I think we all feel and have experienced dealing the "Bully". Mary Thompson says it will in this missive:
City
Council Members and the Mayor's Office,
I
have spoken or emailed with several of you over the last few weeks
regarding the placement of a homeless center at the Simpson location.
Thank you for taking time to meet with me and other citizens of
the community. To this point, it has been very hard to find
answers to questions through the rhetoric and politics. I am
asking for some direct and honest answers. Over the last few
weeks, we have heard that Erin Mendenhall was against the Simpson
site from the start. Now, Lisa Adams is also stating that she
was against the site. I have also learned that the Simpson site
was a very last minute consideration because, until right before the
decision had to be made, the owner had not agreed to sell.
Additionally, according to a GRAMA request, Councilman Kitchens
sent an email asking why he wasn't included in a decision to take one
of the sites off the list. Then, yesterday, Mayor Biskupski
stated that everyone on the Council had the proposed four locations
on their final list of site suggestions. I think you can
understand why this is very confusing and frustrating for the public.
We do not, at this point, feel like anyone is looking out for
us and we don't know who, or what, to believe. Every time I
look at the new, it's a different story. In addition, it does
not seem as though very much thought was put into the Simpson site
due to it's last minute nature. I can give you several reasons
why the Simpson location is not fit for a resource center: close
to I80 for drug trade, close to Fairmont Park, surrounded by
residential neighborhoods, displacing a day care and thriving
businesses, close to the Boys and Girls Club and the State
Liquor Store, depreciation in home values, undermining development
efforts and money that have already been put into the area, the most
expensive parcel the City purchased, lose of quality of life for
current residents, etc.
It
was suggested to me by a council member that I try to get a
reassessment of the original list of proposed sites. I would
like to have the Simpson site reconsidered. According to the
City's website stating the criteria for site selection, the most
important criteria was that the centers are "Not conducive for
regional drug trade/safety is key." As I have raised
several times, the Simpson Avenue location is extremely close to on
and off ramps of I80. How was Simpson not taken off the list
due to this one fact? Will someone please directly answer that
question. The Mayor told us at a meeting on Wednesday
night that Simpson was chosen because it is good for homeless
children. I assume that falls into the very last criteria on
the list, which is that the resource center is "part of a larger
neighborhood." I cannot understand why the most important
criteria is being overlooked for the least important criteria on the
list. Again, please answer this question directly. I know
none of you would suggest that there will not be an increase in drug
use in the area due to this shelter.
Also,
the 850 South 300 West site was not chosen because the
Volunteers of America opposed it because they operate a Youth
Resource Center close by and "their clients would be negatively
impacted by an adult homeless center located near their facility."
I would suggest that the Simpson site is close the the Odyssey
House, which is a youth rehab center, The Boys and Girls Club, and
the John Taylor Home. I oppose this site because the "clients
would be negatively impacted by an adult homeless center located near
the facility."
Additionally,
as a community, we cannot understand why the City is going to push
out a daycare that serves over 100 children in our area and replace
it with a resource center that serves children. This seems, to
be blunt, ridiculous. What we hear from that is that the
children that are already in this community on a permanent basis are
not as important as the children that may one day come this community
for a temporary period of 30-60 days. Does anyone on the
Council or in the Mayor's office not see the problem with this? It
is a blatant disregard for the members (especially children) of the
Sugar House community. As was also raised in the Community
Council meeting on Wednesday night, this is our nicest day car
center.
In
addition to the day care center, the City will be moving two other
thriving businesses. Why? When there were other building
and sites on the finalist list that included buildings the City
already owned. No displacement necessary. I am asking
you, as a constituent and member of this community to please
reevaluate the proposed resource center on Simpson and look at some
of the other proposed sites that were not chosen. I know some
of them are not great options, just as I know that Sugar House was a
very poor choice. Please be willing to rethink this decision
and determine a better course. Sugar House is a wonderful
neighborhood that is thriving and continuing to grow and develop.
Until this recent announcement, home prices have steadily
increased. Sugar House is a great part of Salt Lake City. The
number of really livable and thriving communities in Salt Lake are
shrinking. People are leaving the City and going to the
suburbs. Please don't force the residents of Sugar House to do
the same. Please respect our community for what it is:a
community full of hard working people who have bought homes to raise
their families and live in a relatively safe area of the
neighborhood. Please don't choose an unknown population of
people over the people that are already living and working here-and
building up this community.
I
know that the Mayors office has committed to this being a women and
children's shelter. But I have also learned that the City
cannot make that decision, as it is up to the County. There is
nothing saying that the County has to agree to this. There is
also nothing saying that it has to stay a women and children resource
center. You can not in good conscious as this community to take
a risk of this magnitude without having included us in the
location decision making process. Right now, we see that
we have to pay for the centers with our taxes, and our neighborhood
and, as an added measure, our home values.
Much
has been said about the idea that what we see at the Rio Grande
shelter will not happen at the new centers. Everyone knows that
is no guarantee. Where are those people going to go? The
Mayor keeps stating that those are not the type of people that will
be at the resource centers. So where will they be? If you
are taking those beds away and not replacing them (which must be the
case if those will not be the people at the resource centers), what
will they do? Mayor McAdams suggested that as the resource
centers get up and running, they will cut back the beds at The Road
Home. Again, how does this solve the problem at all, if they
are not the same population served at the resource center? Do
you see the confusion with this argument? Either the City is
replacing The Road Home shelter with the smaller resource centers and
the people getting services at the shelter will now be getting them
at the resource centers, or the City is supplying the resource
centers for a completely different population and all the people that
currently rely on The Road Home will be out of luck and still setting
up cardboard boxes around the Rio Grande area. Do you see why
the numbers aren't adding up here? I feel like, as a public, we
are being told one thing in the hopes that we won't notice what might
really happen to our neighborhoods. As I have said several
times, I lived at the Gateway. I know what that is like and I
understand the situation. I moved to the Sugar House area to
raise my kids because I didn't want them around that element. I
know you can all understand those feelings. And now, with no
warning, you are suggesting moving that to my neighborhood.
As
I have reviewed the sites on the final list, I would make these
recommendations:-3
South 1000 West-the only negatives were an alley closure and utility
relocation.-1740
South 300 West-the negatives were not near homeless services. What
services? There is a Walmart close by for food and
prescriptions. Also, it wasn't chosen, again, because of it's
proximity to I15--I think you see my point...-210
South Rio Grande-the current shelter would have to be demolished. I
don't think I have to point out why it makes a lot of sense to keep a
shelter in that location. If it's a resource center and will
function differently, as you suggest, it shouldn't be a problem
a problem for businesses there.Each
of these locations seems to be a better (or at least as good) choice
of location for the resource center.
I,
and several other members of the community, will continue to fight
the Simpson shelter site. We know that the City can still pull
out of the sale without penalty for another couple of months.
Instead of spending such an absorbent amount of tax payer money
on the Simpson site, please use that money elsewhere. Find a
better site. I keep hearing that the City needs the community
to be a part of this process. Unfortunately, I do not think you
will get that with Sugar House, therefore, this is probably not a
good location. People in this community, as you know, are so
upset with this whole process that I do not see the resource center
being embraced-in part because of the negative impact and in part
because of how it was handled.
I
would like you to consider what Mayor Biskupski told the people when
running for election. After reading her statements, please tell
me if you honestly feel that is how the City is operating and that
this decision is a fair one for the Sugar House community. "I'm
running for mayor because I care about the people who live and work
in this great city and how we are not being included in the decisions
that affect our lives." Her closing statement, "As a
Salt Lake City resident, I know we need an open, transparent
government in which we are working together for community based
solutions."
Thank
you for willingness to listen to these suggestions. Again, I
ask that you reconsider the Simpson site as a location for a resource
center and make a different choice.
Sincerely,Mary
Thompson
January 21st:
Not really an update, but a revision of my concerns. I have sent an email request to see if others see what I see, but looking at City/Sugar House plans has me feeling under the gun. I think the Mayor's attitude of "because I said so" indicates there are plans afoot that make our opinion(s) irrelevant. Hoping I am wrong:
Reading in the Sugar House City Journal this morning (1/21/17) I have come to some unpleasant conclusions about our relationship with the City.The journal reports that the Sugarmont Apartments have been approved to build an 8 story complex with parking for 460 vehicles. Even assuming 1 space for residents and 1 for guests, that's a possible 230 new residents into our little Sugar house area.
They have demolished the little business complex on Wilmington off 600 east. Reportedly, a three story 70 unit complex called Liberty Townhomes will rise in its place.
Because I have no confidence or trust in the city officials, I believe we will ultimately be ignored, because the tax revenues from these two complexes will more than compensate for the loss of the businesses and even the surrounding homes on 600 east and Green Street should they decide to expand the city's turf even more.
I can only hope that Craig Cook's threatened lawsuit will at least give them pause.
I am not giving up on this, but I think we need to consider the financial realities. This administration has a heart for the homeless, but no heart for the single family dwellers in our little neighborhood. We will not even be missed.
After an exchange with the incredibly arrogant David Litvack, I am convinced they feel are untouchable.
I think our best bet is to be as obstructionist as possible. Time is the City's enemy. If they dither too long, the State may pull funds. This is where the lawsuit becomes our best tool. It can delay and incur costs that the City will not want to spend if they lose the State backing.
I am not sophisticated enough in these matters, but this is what I fear is looming. Other opinions would be welcome.
Januray 19th:
Today's news from the New Zealnd Herald:
A city and country I respect immensely is facing the same problems Salt Lake City is. Their solution is one that Salt Lake has set on the back burner while they go back to the scattered site model that has been around for more than 25 years. Makes you wonder what is really driving our city's initiative doesn't it.\?
Housing First Model in New ZealandJanuary 18 Part two:
Attended the city meeting this evening January 18, 2016. It of course was another round of open house meant to try to make us accept the City's blundering. There is a chance that I will be on Channel 4 news this time at 10pm. Had a chance to call one of the Mayor's deputies on his stance that the public were involved in site selection. Follow the link below. Please save yourself the heartburn of watching these people pat each other on the back and move the slider to 1hr 04min and 40sec into the recording. The council and committee were to have received the filtered site selection by June 2016 with public input by August or September...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlI5YXApoTE… I have spoken to council members who admit they skipped that part. How is this representation? It would seem that talking amongst themselves constitutes public input NOT!
Well, the Mayor is out of town for the next scheduled council meeting (what a surprise). Council member Stan Penrod says he hasn't heard any alternative sites put forward. This can only mean he doesn't read his emails. I personally have sent site suggestions to every single member of the council and the Mayor several times. According to this news report from KUTV2, the Mayor's chief of staff is the one who signed off on the $7 million dollar purchase. Yet the Mayor maintains no knowledge. I find this all very hard to find our leaders credible.
http://kutv.com/news/local/mayor-biskupskis-chief-of-staff-signed-off-on-7-million-simpson-avenue-site
January 17 UPDATE New twist and entry in the matter:
Craig Cook, a local attorney and property owner in the Simpson Avenue area has sent a letter to the Mayor and Council regarding the situation:
"Dear Mayor and Council Members: I was unable to attend your meeting tonight but was able to watch it online. You stated at the end of the meeting that you welcomed comments from all citizens who were not present. I am taking this opportunity to respond, not just as an affected property owner but as an attorney. I was born in 1945 in Sugarhouse and lived my early adult life there. I am presently living only a few miles from my parents' Sugarhouse home which I still maintain. I am a lawyer, retired JAG Air Force officer, and owner of rental houses in Salt Lake City and three other cities. I have a Salt Lake City rental on Driggs Avenue and five rentals on Parkway Avenue. In addition I have a South Salt Lake City house on 24th South and another on Burton Avenue. All of these rentals are within a mile of the proposed Simpson site and one within 1 block. This gives me adequate standing to comment on the Simpson site much more than some of your participants tonight who have no financial stake in your decision but merely want to help homeless people as a general proposition.
I am writing this letter to give you adequate legal notice that may be required in any future lawsuit that is filed as a result of your decision to purchase the Simpson property. Often city officials defend actions by claiming that "if we had only known of the problem we would have fixed it." That defense will be unavailable in this case.
First, the undisputed public admissions that neither the Council nor the Mayor was aware of the purchase price of this property constitutes malfeasance of city officials. It is your responsibility to use the taxpayers money wisely and not to squander it in reckless disregard of financial facts. You essentially gave a blank check to a committee of individuals and told them to find sites because of a time crunch you encountered because of poor management and pressure from the Utah Legislature. This committee probably consisted of real estate agents and brokers as well as other people who may have had a conflict of interest. We do not know who was on that committee but will certainly learn in discovery. Your committee apparently did what Chinese nationals are now doing throughout the world; don't look for property for sale but rather go to owners and offer them tremendous amounts that induce them to sell. Here, it is probable that the City paid at least double and maybe triple the market value of the Simpson property. This action violates your oaths to serve the people of Salt Lake City and, in a private company, would result in all of you being fired for incompetence. While it is difficult to sue the City, Council Members and the Mayor for such malfeasance, it is not impossible and will certainly be worth our effort to publicize the whole affair to the citizens of Salt Lake City and Utah.
Second, you now have an opportunity to escape this malfeasance by using the due diligence clause in the real estate contracts. With the small sum of $10,000 or so you can cancel these two transactions with minimal loss. In fact, the neighbors of Simpson have agreed to pay this amount if the contract is canceled. Very few instances of malfeasance of office allow such an easy remedy. The failure to take this opportunity would only show your complete disregard for your initial incompetence in allowing millions of dollars to be spent without knowing the amounts.
Third, to complete the Simpson transactions you will have to break the leases of the businesses that are now existing. This will result in separate lawsuits for some of these businesses that will have a tremendous time trying to find suitable locations. By your unsolicited contact of the owners of this land, you have essentially committed tortious interference with business relations by financially inducing the landlord to violate his lease agreements. Government immunity does not usually extend to this type of conduct and may fail to protect you individually as well.
Fourth, you are planning on having these shelters run by a private nonprofit
entity with members of the government and local businesses as board members. Any prior illegal actions of the city as to the purchase of this land will attach to this entity and to the board members who affirm the prior city conduct. We will make sure that all potential members are made aware of this potential liability before they offer to join the nonprofit entity.
Fifth, although not yet mentioned, in order to properly operate the Simpson site you will be forced to close Simpson Avenue at 7th East. If you do not do this, the site will be divided by a steady stream of cars that will endanger the inhabitants of the shelter and the drivers of the cars. In addition you will need the land of the street and the parking lots to make an adequate building that will meet the needs of 150 people. I am presently litigating the closure of Burton and Truman Avenues by South Salt Lake City to accommodate a car dealership on State Street. See Potter v. South Salt Lake City, Utah Court of Appeals, Case No. 20150931. I expect to win this case and reopen the streets within the next year. The standard for closing a public street are very strict and will not be allowed "if the public interest or any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation." Section 10-9(a)-609.5 UCA. This standard can be easily met since closing Simpson at 700 East would prevent residents from being able to reach their homes while traveling north on 7th East and would create a traffic nightmare at the only entrance on Warnock Avenue.
Finally, if all else fails and you go ahead with the Simpson site the residents of Sugarhouse will initiate a referendum pursuant to Section 20A-7-601UCA to not only stop the Simpson site but to stop all four sites. While the Utah Legislature has made it very difficult for citizens to gather the necessary signatures in a 45 day period, the publicity that this homeless shelter waste of tax dollars decision has received will make it easy for the hundreds of volunteers to obtain the necessary signatures and freeze your plans until the next election. There are many people such as myself willing to donate thousands of dollars in defeating your plans at the polls if required.
It is unnecessary for me to restate the eloquent reasons given by the residents of the Simpson area for not placing a homeless shelter in the heart of a thriving business and residential area. You can all take the position, "Too bad, but we are moving ahead no matter what they think!" Fine. But now you are aware of some of the non-emotional reasons that you might want to reconsider this incredible decision in light of perhaps years of litigation and wasted resources.
Sincerely,
Craig S. Cook
Attorney
Lt. Col (ret), USAF"
January 16: Email
Well the Sugar House Simpson Avenue has had another turn. Our District Representative has returned my emails.
The text follows:
to me
Dear Mr. Ovard,
I received confirmation that the city is utilizing the "Housing First" model.Also, know that I do not want to see the Simpson Avenue businesses relocated. Should the resource center come to Simpson, I am advocating for the day care and the beauty school to be incorporated as part of it. Dancing Cranes, however, would need a new home.Sincerely,Lisa AdamsSalt Lake City CouncilDistrict 7
From Kurt Ovard
to Lisa
Thank you for your reply to my emails. However, some of your clarifications give one pause in another direction. If we are indeed looking at low income housing or low income home plus a resource center or all of the above plus the beauty school & the daycare, then there is truly insufficient parking in this neighborhood. That leads one to conclude that more than the businesses in this community are going to need to be sacrificed.
One is put in mind of the old joke about two brothers. One calls the other and tells him that their favorite cat has died. Upon hearing this the second brother says “you can’t just blurt something like that out. You must lead gently to the sad news. Say instead that the cat is on the roof and that rescue efforts are underway. Then gradually let it be known the pet has slipped and died.” The first brother says, sure I get that. It make sense. The second brother then asks “By, the way how is mom?” to which the first brother says: “Well mom is out on the roof….”.
One rapidly gets the feeling that the Simpson Avenue neighborhood has made it to the roof.
We currently make far less than teachers and fire service personnel mentioned in a previous email. If we had not paid for the house twenty years ago, we would be unable for afford anything but your low income housing. We were looking forward to a comfortable retirement with little overhead, but the City is about to change all that.
Sincerely,
Kurt Ovard
From Lisa Adams
to me
Just a very quick answer to thank you for making me laugh and to tell you I hope not to have you on that roof!
LRA
January 15 OP-ED
Here is a beautiful argued editorial from Sunday!
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4812996-155/op-ed-homeless-plan-despoils-award-winning-sugar
January 14!
Salt Lake City Mayor and Council say they had no idea how much money was spent! Does this remind anyone of plausible deniability?
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=42865741&nid=148&title=biskupski-says-she-wasnt-aware-of-sugar-house-sites-7-million-price
January 13 UPDATE:
This Salt Lake Tribune article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/4812907-155/biskupski-downplays-city-county-rift-on-homeless?page=2 creates some very disturbing thoughts for us. Particularly this comment: Mendenhall wrote on Facebook on Thursday that she told the administration during a small group meeting during site selection that the city needed to give a heads-up to neighbors at 653 E. Simpson — which leases to four businesses and abuts a neighborhood of single-family homes — and that she suggested it offer to buy nearby homes at current market value. I refer of course to the offer to buy nearby homes at current market value. We had discussed last month that I wondered how long before our actual properties would be in peril. When did we die? Why are these governmental bodies fighting over the carcus? I had thought we had opened a little bit of dialogue with some of the Council members in re-considering the DI site rather than Simpson Avenue. After all the City already owns the property. Why waste 7,5 million dollars on acquisition? This comment from Council member Mendenhall seems to indicate there is no future for our little neighborhood. Would someone please explain what is really going on? After speaking with Andrew Johnston, I understand the need for an east side shelter, but wouldn't the Highland Dr location serve better? I am hoping to hear from Lisa Adams regarding this, but with the County having its own designs on our neighborhood and the prospect that nearby homes could be purchased by the city, I fear we have the same future as disco..... Our home just turned 100 last year and we are retiring. How excited would any of the commission be to face a prospect of being pushed out of a 40 year residence? Our family has dwelt here for 90 of the house's 100 years. Please consider these things. The news of the impending change already ruined our Christmas Season. Should we have to move, this business would have managed to ruin our future plans.
January 12 UPDATE:
The City held "workshops" to educate the public about the City's intent. It was noisy and chaotic, but at least we were able to leave comments and opinions. It is our sincere hope that they will actually be read and considered. We did manage to make the news briefly on KSL TV.
KSL TV video
What seems like good news seems disturbing to me. The County Mayor Ben McAdams is in disagreement with City Mayor Jackie Biskupski over the site selection of Simpson Avenue. This seems a brilliant turn of events, however it's not that the County thinks Simpson is not viable, it's that the County wants to use the neighborhood for low cost housing! This may be a more frightening proposition than a resource center. The neighborhood is functioning and alive. The businesses provide excellent service to the neighborhood and the city. Why destroy it?
http://www.sltrib.com/news/4808034-155/salt-lake-county-mayor-calls-for?fullpage=1
January 11, 5:00pm
We are headed to City workshops in hopes of killing this disaster which is headed to Simpson Ave. I have long contended that the Mayor has made snap judgments based on a reversal of a common sense axiom. Instead of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, the Mayor asserts that the wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. By the few, I am not referring to the homeless... I refer to the few developers who want the current shelter out of their front yard. The Mayor's haste in wanting The Road Home closed seems to support my contention. Here is an interesting article from the Salt Lake Tribune regarding disagreement over this haste:
January 11, 2017 Update:
There is a "workshop" scheduled at SLCC for the purpose of allowing some input regarding the sites as selected. We will be voicing our opinion that Simpson Avenue should not have been selected at all. The workshop is from 6p to 8p. If any are interested, but cannot attend, there is a survey on the Salt Lake City website! Just follow the link:http://www.slcgov.com/opencityhall?pd_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peakdemocracy.com%2Fportals%2F79%2FIssue_4278#peak_democracy
January 10, 2017 1:30pm: Just received this notification via email from the SAVE simpson group. Please make note of the address for meeting tonight, 3220 So State St. This meeting starts at 7:30- 8:30....)Tuesday, Jan. 10th. This is a neighborhood group meeting. Hope you can attend.
January 10, 2017 UPDATE:
Last night we gathered with a group of concerned, committed citizens to work out how to come to grips with the coming meetings and the apparent agenda of the Mayor. In addition to hearing plans and complaints we heard from people who actually have experience with the homeless. The picture painted of the damage done to these people by circumstance and bad choices made this errant decision even more disturbing. Having a heart for the homeless doesn't mean we have to be blind to the realities that their situations will inevitably bring to our little neighborhood. We cannot have this happen here!
Below you will find a link provided by Google and Google Maps. If you have not looked at it before please do so now. It is our belief that this is how the Council and the Mayor and all connected with this decision have viewed the area.
Simpson Avenue Aerial View This is a marvel of technological wizardry and beats the heck out of the old plat maps with the unintelligible blue lines and dashes (at least for us lay folk). Truly amazing stuff. You can view a neighborhood without ever leaving your desk! And there lies the problem. This kind of digital imagery reduces the neighborhood to the reality of a video game. WE ARE NOT "SIM CITY" THE SUGAR HOUSE EDITION Video game! This is not some 3D model that you can cut and paste from one locale to another! This is a vibrant alive business/residential area with real people. Li'l Scholars is one of the premiere day care facilities in the region. This plan would displace children, families, and care givers. Are they not already providing a public service to this community? Dancing Cranes is an amazing establishment with shopping, yoga classes, coffee and dining as well. The owners have made huge difference in the quality of the life here in this neighborhood. The Sherman Kendall Academy would also be displaced. This says nothing of the damage done to the neighborhood itself by the fear factor. We walk our streets even at night. Can you say the same for the area around the current facility? The ONLY way one can see the vitality that this business area brings to our neighborhood is to actually visit it. See what you would be destroying by pursuing the plan for this site. Please take the time to visit. There is no harm in having made an error. There is only harm in not correcting the error before irreparable damage has been done. Now is the time to value sound judgment and representation.
January 10 Continued: Received a reply to the above comment from Andrew Johnston:
|
9:44 AM (3 hours ago)
 | | ||
Thanks for the feedback Kurt. Do you have an alternative plan for us to review? I will be at the openhouse tomorrow evening (or next Wednesday) and would love to hear alternative plans that your group might have.
Andrew
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
|
10:13 AM (2 hours ago)
| | ||
Received this reply. How about suggesting 3 shelters of 200 population? I know the county would find that acceptable.
| xxxxx |
12:36 PM (11 minutes ago)
| | |
Kurt,
I think that would be everyone's preferred direction. Also you can suggest alternate sites such as the DI the city owns or long term affordable housing (which some people are not on board with).
In response to the original pronouncement we sent the following to the Salt Lake City Council, the Mayor and the Salt Lake Tribune:
We have been told that there is to be no discussion regarding the matter of the homeless facilities and their locations, Therefore consider this a protest regarding the methodology used by the city in these matters. As a resident of one of the areas affected by these decisions, I must say that it seems that the city regards its residents as impediments to its plans rather than constituents who are deserving consideration.
Much of the success of a governed/governing relationship is based on trust. The governed (i.e.residents) elect representatives that they “trust” will act in the best interests of the constituents. Actions held in secret and then forced upon an unknowing populace do not give the governed a sense of trust or even a sense value. Having been involved in rezoning battles for over 30 years, we have seen the “city” react to opposition to its plans by temporarily shelving or delaying those plans. Then try again and again. Some twenty five years ago, areas affected by these plans were asked to attend council meetings. (Large areas 2700 S to 2100 S and State Street to 900 E). When the opposition proved to be too great, new meetings were held with increasingly smaller and smaller areas notified until finally only two addresses were included. We objected again and the decision was put on hold. Finally the changes were approved without any notification. When confronted with this, the council at the time admitted that was not the proper procedure, but since it was already accomplished, there was nothing to be done. It would seem that the success of this approach has been adopted as the easiest method of accomplishing the city's goals.None of this creates a bond of trust.It is extremely hard to believe that removing and displacing existing successful business tenants and putting a homeless facility in the midst of a longstanding residential community was the “best” choice possible.It is also difficult to accept that paying nearly three times the fair market value of the properties involved was a financially responsible act and certainly raises questions regarding the public trust. Comments such as "they will just have to make the best of it" show an arrogance that is not deserving of the position of public servant.Hopefully, a bond of trust can be reforged with the City or at least future more caring members of its Council and Mayoral positions.
In response, the council member from our district withdrew her support for the Simpson Avenue site. While we were encouraged by this, we later heard in an interview that ALL members had picked the same four sites. Follow the link below if you care to hear a very informative interview from KUER radio. This interview lets one see that the decision had been made and the money had already changed hands. The Mayor was in charge of acquisition, but the council was instrumental in picking the sites. Thus the sincerity of the council members who said they could not support the decision rings hollow. They all knew that the wheels were in motion, so it did nothing to the City's position, but gave the appearance of community concern.
Further response from us follows.
Community under siege
Quick background: Our home hit its 100th birthday in 2016. For 90 of those 100 years our family has dwelt in this little bungalow, happy to call it home. My wife and I have lived in this home for the last 40 years. So our investment both monetarily and emotionally is not insignificant. To have the city take the approach that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission is nerve wracking to say the least and now the City has taken the view that it need not even ask for forgiveness! They believe its citizens must merely suck it up and make the best of it!. Since the announcement of the planned changes to this area, we have not slept. We worry not just about the damage which the area may incur, but we worry about what other unannounced changes are to come. At our present ages, nearing retirement, we were looking forward to a peaceful quietude resting in the family nest. Now we feel we are gearing for battle to defend our home and property. This City and its plans are about as welcome in this neighborhood as Germany was when it came knocking at Poland’s door. Perhaps they also said: "Oops! Did we forget to tell you we were coming? " There was a very informative, if late, interview on KUER radio that explained all the changes that were to make these new “resource centers” totally different than the current “shelter”. KUER link . Had these things been explained, we would have probably been more receptive to the new design. The Mayor’s response that we (the public) were just not well informed did not really take root here. After all who was at fault for not informing the public? This is indicative of the real problem. Lack of judgment. Long ago a fictional character characterized a committee as an organism with more than six legs but no brain. If our lack of confidence seems harsh, think about the Cottonwood Mall debacle, (how much good was done there?), or the Main Street Beautification Project (how many businesses were done in by that bit of creative thinking?). Or look at the damage done to the Gateway when City Creek was allowed to siphon off many of Gateway's retailers? The decision making is questionable at best and down right dangerous at worst. There are active viable businesses along Simpson Avenue providing jobs, income and yes paying taxes. How much money is generated by a resource center? How much money has the Cottonwood Mall generated now that is reduced to dirt? The City is too impressed with playing with the heavy hitters that have come to the table and too little interested in its populace. If one voices opposition, one is accused of being the bad guy, of having no heart for the homeless. This is simply not true. To attempt to misdirect blame to unknowing public, when the City held all the cards is ridiculous. The County was unaware of the City's plan, the Sugar House Council was unaware (as witnessed by their own plans requiring the businesses to create store fronts that faced trax). This all indicates a rush to completion that did not have enough consideration behind it. Had the City not had to rush (and why the rush?) proper input could have been obtained and likely acceptance. It is our contention that the public was left out of this action because it would have forced the City to take a more reasoned look at its locations. In response to the City's claim that this has been underway for several years, one need only look at their own recording of the April 2016 meeting. Homeless Commission meeting April 2016 . It was discussed that there was a rapid timeline in play and that there would be multiple sites submitted sometime during their June 2016 meeting.
