|
REGULAR MEETING March 11, 2019
<br /> any neighbors,is different when you are a private facility coming into a neighborhood. So, I would
<br /> like that to happen and if you're speaking of that, when neighbors and other people send issues to
<br /> us regarding what happened with TIA Corporation in 2011 and those kind of issues from that
<br /> standpoint because neighbors take the time to do their homework on you all, too. So, I think it's
<br /> only fair, I think if someone is moving next to you and there are some legal references, they can
<br /> literally go to their cellphones and find it, I think it's appropriate that you at least speak to that
<br /> from that standpoint. This is public record. When they look at the case Narconon Freedom Center,
<br /> with that, and they list a lot of different things regarding this gentleman and the care that was not
<br /> given to him as alleged in the plaintiff here and how he was not supervised.You are aware of these
<br /> kinds of things. How do we respond to neighbors' concerns when they send those to us? What is
<br /> your response?
<br /> Mr. Gerrard replied, Can I answer the first(1St)question,Narconon Freedom Center?TIA Holding
<br /> Corporation is a real estate holding corporation. It is a landlord. It owns the Choices Property on
<br /> 3606 East Jefferson. TIA leased that building to the Narconon Freedom Center. It had nothing to
<br /> do with the TIA Corporation. We are the landlord of that particular property. We didn't own the
<br /> business or operate the business. We were the landlord of it. To go to the second (2"d) question,
<br /> what am I willing to do here in the neighborhood? We went to every neighborhood group and
<br /> business group, City Council, we've invited everyone we can into our Center, personally, for a
<br /> tour and to answer questions. It is no different than this forum we are having here. Make no
<br /> mistake, we understand the sensitive nature of this. We understand the immediate community
<br /> around us. We want to make this work. The only way we can, Councilmember Davis, is to bring
<br /> these people in and find out their concerns. What are the fears and how do I solve that particular
<br /> problem? I believe we've given it everything we can to accommodate our immediate neighbors.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis interjected,And so,therefore,in terms of these kind of legal matters,
<br /> you and your attorneys have responded?
<br /> Mr. Gerrard replied, Yes, to each and every one of them. There is nothing current at this present
<br /> time.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis replied, Ok, I understand. I would like to say, we have to ask all
<br /> these questions, so with all due respect, to say that you don't have to answer these kinds of
<br /> questions, you do have to answer these kinds of questions. You made a comment when my
<br /> colleague was speaking, you don't have to answer all these thousands of questions, so, it was a
<br /> little disconcerting when you said that.
<br /> Ms. Brown replied, Sir, I'm sorry, I don't remember stating anything like that and I'm sorry. I do
<br /> believe these questions are necessary, I just don't think I can personally answer all of them.
<br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis stated,That's fine. I appreciate that apology. Alright,thank you.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden asked, Is there a doctor on this site? I just want clarification from
<br /> the last meeting.
<br /> Mr. Adolf replied, No, there will not be a doctor on site there.
<br /> Councilmember John Voorde then opened the floor to comments from Council Members.
<br /> Councilmember Regina Williams-Preston stated, This was really interesting deliberation for me.
<br /> It reminded me of, and I think others possibly, another very highly contested and emotional issue
<br /> previously. So,there is a lot I have to think about. I think it's really important in these times, as an
<br /> elected official, to be consistent. I think that is extremely important and that we do our due
<br /> diligence to think about consistency with the laws. So, thinking about that previous decision, a lot
<br /> of things seem similar here but there is one(1)important difference. That is why I asked about the
<br /> issue of other locations. In the previous situation, there was a request for rezoning and one (1) of
<br /> my real questions was if we have to rezone this particular site.Are there any sites close that already
<br /> have the zoning they needed? In that particular case there were quite a number of other spaces,
<br /> very near, to where that particular site was requesting. So, based on that it was, to me, based on
<br /> zoning, although like I said, that particular issue was also highly emotional. There were moral
<br /> issues around it and people of long-standing disagreement about a moral issue. But, this decision
<br /> isn't about a moral issue. It's about zoning. So, for me, the impassioned testimony we got in our
<br /> 18
<br />
|