04-07-75 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

S �> 03 REGULAR MF.ETTNG APRIL 7, 1975 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) stated that, if the Council would commit itself to deal with a zone change to permit group homes in the "A" Residential Districts in the near future, the National Center would support any amend- ment which would provide safe and stable family environments for the citizens. Mrs. Lee Swan, 2022 South Swygart Avenue, talked about the definition of the word "family" and the many groups that refer to themselves as family, such as the Charles Manson family. She indicated that she had talked to many people and conducted an impersonal telephone survey with 84 citizens. The response for the definition of family was basically the same: traditional -- father, mother, children, blood relatives. She talked about preserving the rights of the traditional family and indicated that Council President Parent's ordinance contained the traditional definition. Mrs. Shirley Fulton, 503 Blaine Avenue, stated that Webster's Dictionary defined family as "a group or category of like things ". This was merely one of the meanings. She indicated that there was a problem, but she felt the Harter Heights ordinance was not a solution to the problem and would impose too many restrictions and create hardships. She talked about the needs of the senior citizens in the community and felt consideration should be given them. Mr. Kevin Ranaghan, 1003 St. Vincent Street President of the Charismatic Renewal Services, felt that both the members of the Harter Heights Association and the A- Residential Association felt absentee landlordism was a threat to the neighborhood. He also felt there was a good deal of agreement between the two groups. He stated that the A- Residential Association was willing to compromise for the good of the neighborhoods. With a compromise, a total number of people living together would be four, and the A- Residential Association was in agreement with this. He felt there were two differences in the ordinances: the widow question and rights of freedom. He felt the proposal of the A- Residential Association was only slightly broader than the Harter Heights ordinance. He talked about the primary family and the preservation of freedom for additional unrelated persons. He felt the home owner should be able to extend his family within the limits that his house would occupy. He felt the Harter Height ordinance would be discriminatory if not amended. He stated that decisions of the Supreme Court have been overturned, and he indicated that he was personally unaware of implications of persons' characters being made. He hoped the groups could work together to come up with a viable ordinance for the betterment of the community. Mr. Joseph Guentert, 1034 Foster Street, indicated that he lived in the Harter Heights area and he felt that, with the experience he had in the neighborhood, he would have to comment on the absentee landlord situation and the downgrading of the homes. He felt the most responsible group of people were being picked on. He felt there was a fear that the situation would grow out of hand. He commented on the student population. He indicated that, in most places, these homes were very well kept, in his opinion. He felt a way should be found to deal with the irresponsible and this would solve the problem. Mr. Arthur Quigley, President of the Northeast Neighborhood Council, indicated that he wished to speak on behalf of the Executive Board of the Council. He stated that the A- Residential zoning ordinance should be cleaned up. He felt the upgrading of the blighted areas was very important. He stated that he was pleased that a volunteer group of citizens from Harter Heights was able to sit down and address the problem. He encouraged this type of citizen participation. He hoped the Council would take the issue in hand and vote in favor of the Harter Heights ordinance. Mr. Donald Fisher, 909 Riverside Drive, a representative of the Board of Directors of the Park Avenue Neighborhood Association, indicated that his neighborhood was at the borderline of deterioration, and the citizens were desparately trying to save it. He was hopeful that a real sound "A" Residential classification could be made from which to work. Mr. George Jena, 1101 Woodward Avenue, President of the South Bend Home Owners of the Near Northwest Side, supported the Harter Heights ordinance in an effort to try and solve the problem. He mentioned the amount of time and work that had gone into the ordinance. Mr. Ed Burn, renting at 914 Cedar Street, stated that the proposed ordinance would help prevent the problem of absentee landlords. He talked about red lining of the banks and neighborhood deteriora- tion. He stated that the problems currently existing would not be solved but future problems would be. He felt legislation should be directed to the landlord and the problem of ownership should be dealt with. He did not believe that the tenants themselves were to blame for neighborhood deterior, tion. He indicated that the students of Notre Dame wanted to help in solving the problem. He offered their assistance. Mrs. Yvonne Guentert, 814 North St. Louis Boulevard, indicated that she and her husband were the so- called "absentee landlords" being mentioned frequently in the various presentations. She felt that many people did not care and that the whole problem should not be blamed on the absentee landlord. She talked about enforcement of the present city ordinances. She felt many landlords have helped to reverse the deterioration. Mrs. Lawrence Lusk, 213 Napoleon Boulevard, felt the neighborhoods change and she had seen this happen. She felt the Parent ordina was an asset and would help improve the situation. She urged passage of the ordinance. Mr. Frank Riedle, 816 Park Avenue, President of the Park Avenue Neighborhood Association, stated that he was in favor of the Parent ordinance; however, he did not approve of the exceptions. He felt the definition of the word "family" could be abused. Mr. Jim Rauner, 1307 East Colfax Avenue, talked about the pros and cons to both ordinances. He stated that neither ordinance would solve the problem. He felt the problem should be defined and examined. He stated that everyone was talking about the problem of absentee landlords and the general mis -use of the residential neighborhoods. He talked about the definition of family and wondered if this was the best approach to the problem. He indicated that he was somewhat confused about the amendments to the Parent ordinance regarding boarding house and lodging house. He felt both ordinances were limited and additional and existing city ordinances would be needed. He felt those problems should be attacked directly, and he stated that he was willing to support the A- Residential Association's ordinance because it would not go beyond what he felt would be unduly restrictive and meddling. Mr. Ed Mark, 110 Napoleon Boulevard, stated that he supported the Parent ordinance. He referred to statements made by the councilmen regarding the preservation of neighborhoods. He stated that the Council must fulfill its commit - ment and obligations to the citizens. He felt the Council's duty was to vote on behalf of the Parent ordinance. He felt the Council should act now and not delay the issue. Mr. Robert Wellfare United Methodist Minister, stated that he failed to see where the word "family" was more important than the word "residential ". He felt the key word was residential - -that the person reside there. He wondered if the purpose of the concern was being misused. He felt the citizens were being side- tracked. He felt the Parent ordinance was infringing upon his desire to "put roots into the community ". He felt the Parent proposal was contrary to the scriptures. He felt there were no cases that would definitely show that deterioration was caused by an extended family. He talked about free enterprise and individual ownership. Ms. Angela Olson, 1413 East McKinley, felt that neither of the ordinances would prevent the problem and the ordinances were discriminatory to cer- tain groups of people. She indicated that she was opposed to the two ordinances and she felt false assumptions had been made as to the cause of deterioration. Mr. John Malone, 126 East Pokagon, felt the problem was well defined. He felt action should be taken now to stop the problem. He stated that the problem was the definition of family, and he felt that the Parent ordinance was the best definition because it accepted the problem and was not discriminatory. Mr. Don Chase, 1067