04-07-75 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING APRIL 7, 1975 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) Woodward Avenue, supported the Parent ordinance. He talked about the inner city problem in existence. He talked about the blight in the southeast neighborhood. He felt the Parent ordinanc( could help to arrest the problem. Mr. Daniel Guentert, 814 North St. Louis Boulevard, talked about neighborhood cleanup. He indicated that he had requested help and assistance from Council Presides Parent regarding this problem and had received no reply. He felt this was a major cause of neighborhood deterioration. Mr. Thomas Huebing, 17298 Willowbrook Drive, talked about his experience in renting. He felt the wrong approach was being taken to the problem as far as the definition of the word "family ". Mr. Russell Sanford, 11352 Portage, talked about personal rights and the workable definition of family and a strict definition. He felt the ordinance sponsored by the A- Residential Association was less restrictive as far as a person's rights was concerned. He felt the A- Residential Association addressed itself to the problem and he felt the ordinance shoulc be studied to see if it would solve the problem. He felt the Council should look at the current violations and see if the less restrictive proposal would solve the absentee landlord problem. Mrs. Margaret Langford, 109 Napoleon Boulevard, felt the Area Plan Commission report showed there was deterioration caused by high density areas. She felt the Parent ordinance was urgently needed in the City of South Bend. She wondered about the worth of the whole city zoning ordinance. She talked about absentee landlords and the problems when a number of houses were owned and not taken care of. She talked about the demolition of homes in the city and the housing cycle. She felt code enforcement was very important once the issue being considered was settled. She stated that the Parent ordinance, in her opinion, was a good start in helping to solve the problem. She indicated that her only disagreement to the ordinance sponsored by the A- Residential Association was the definition of the word "family ". Mr,s. Louvenia Cain, 1207 West Washington Avenue, stated that she was speaking as a concerned citizen. She felt Mrs. Langford had made the issue very clea: She urged passage of the Parent ordinance. Mr. Mark Timler, 820 Northwood Drive, talked about his work as a social worker for retarded children. He indicated that he now worked with the Charismatic Renewal. He indicated that he would hate to see this work hindered by the adoption of the Parent ordinance. Mr. Ronald Olsen, 1106 Clover, indicated that his basic objection to the Parent ordinance was that it did not protect the involvement of children placed in a home in order that they not be made wards of the court. Mr. Konopa indicated that this was not a problem because the children would be under the custody of the courts which would have the authority to place the children in a home despite any restrictions contained in a city ordinance. Mr. Walter Willis, Jr. 1119 West Colfax Avenue, indicated that he would hate to have to make a decision on the issue; however, he felt sure the Council would act accordingly. Mrs. Glenda Ray Hernandez, 702 East South Street, recognized the difficulty of the task before the Council. She felt the final decisii would be important and should be based on careful thought and study. She, too, talked about the problems of neighborhood deterioration. She felt the mere definition of the word "family" would not solve the problem. She felt the Counca.- -ssre1 •be e = remely cautious in restricting, the expanded family. She felt interior size of the structures would help to solve the problem of number of persons within a home. She hoped adequate enforcement would be provided so that the comprehensive approach could be accomplished. Mr. Al Soennecker, Executive Director of the Counci, for the Retarded, talked about the concern for the handicapped persons. He stated that, by talkin, with the parents of handicapped children, they expressed objection to the Parent ordinance. He, too, felt that this issue should be considered separately and, if this was done, there would be no real objection to the Parent ordinance as far as the handicapped were concerned. Mr. Bernard Teah 116 Peashway, felt the Parent ordinance was coming at a poor time becuase of the primary election only a short time away; however, he hoped the Council would act intelligently on the matter. Mr. Joseph Zakas, 1203 North Notre Dame Avenue, talked about the definition of a single housekeeping unit which was included in the ordinance. He felt the Parent ordinance was opposed to family life Mr. John Uhran, 1349 East Monroe Street, commented generally about zoning and the lack of needed zoning within the city. He felt zoning allowed for citizen input and a commission was not needed to study the problem further. He felt the decision should be made now. He indicated that he was speaking in favor of the Parent ordinance. He felt the Parent ordinance would allow for an extended family, and there was nothing wrong with restrictions whether they be zoning or otherwise In the A- Residential Association's proposal, the word "owner" had not been changed to titleholder, and he felt this was a serious flaw. He also felt there was a problem of economic skew. He indicated that any problems that might exist in the Parent ordinance could be corrected. Manuel Garcia expressed support of the Harter Heights proposal because he felt it would help to stop the deterioration of the homes in the neighborhoods. Mr. Plodowski indicated that many persons supporting the Parent ordinance were under the impression that a widow could have three persons living with her. He felt that, without cooking and living together, only two persons would be allowed. He asked for a clarification on the matter. Mr. Konopa commented sarcastically, at which time Chairman Newburn asked that Mr. Konopa simply answer the question asked. Council President Parent indicated that the word "family" was clearly defined and a widow could have up to three other persons living in her house. Mr. Paul DeCellas, 809 East Angela Boulevard, stated that he felt strongly about the A- Residential proposal; however, he felt this was not the time for the Council to make a decision on the matter. He felt both groups were not very far apart on a compromise to the problem, and he was sure a compromise could be reached in due time. Mr. Jim Langford, 109 Napoleon Boulevard, indicated that many homes had been deteriorated and nothing was being done to solve the problem. He felt too much time had been taken on the issue, and he felt the A- Residential Association wanted a "blank check" to continue the deterioration. Mr. Gerald Kline, 113 West North Shore Drive, expressed concern of preservation, including historic preserva- tion. He talked about the amount of time and money he had put into his home. He felt action should be taken now and he supported the Parent proposal. Another student residing at 1203 North Notre Dame Avenue, Joe Bajdakas, felt the A- Residential Association referred to a single family unit and it was clearly defined. Mr. Dick Keusch, 1845 Winston felt no one was arguing about neighborhood deterioration. He felt adjustments should be made on both sides. Mr. Steven Hurtt, 1117 North St. Joseph Street, stated that physical deterioration was not the only thing being dis- cussed, but also social deterioration. He felt the problem could not be solved with a definition of the word "family ". He indicated that many persons have suggested that there are alternative meanings. He urged adoption of the Parent ordinance. Councilman Miller complimented the citizens. He felt many worthwhile points had been brought out. He stated that the proposals were zoning ordinances and not social or building codes or a bill of rights. He felt many issues could be taken care of in a separate ordinance, such as the problem with the handicapped. He felt the religious situation might also need a separate discussion. Deterioration of housing was also an issue which the Council had already addressed itself to. He felt the "A" Residential District would have to be enforced and interpreted by everyone. He felt this clarification was needed, and the Council should "come to grips with the matter ". He It