Blanchet House submitted this response:Thank you for your coverage and for ensuring your readers receive factual information about Blanchet House's forthcoming women's program, Bethanie’s Room. We want to offer a few clarifications to correct some inaccuracies that may mislead the public:
1. The quote, “This is a 75-bed women’s shelter that I think the mayor and city have been planning for a while,” attributed to Ken Thrasher, is incorrect. Bethanie’s Room is not a city-planned shelter but instead a privately operated and fully donor-funded initiative led by Blanchet House.
2. Regarding the quote from Todd Zarnitz, “It’s interesting that they have had zero conversations with the neighborhood about this location,” we’d like to clarify that our first neighborhood meeting, by invitation, is scheduled for May 31 at The Triple Lindy. This will be our first gathering with close neighbors, and we’re genuinely looking forward to meeting them. Members of our team have spent the past week walking the neighborhood to introduce ourselves personally to residents, business owners, and property managers.
3. The statement, “Neighbors are invited to a presentation on the proposal Saturday, May 31, 10 a.m.-noon, at The Triple Lindy, 1000 NW 17th Ave,” may give the impression of a public presentation. In reality, this is an initial meet-and-greet small gathering with residents and businesses close to the future site of Bethanie’s Room. Ryan, the owner of The Triple Lindy, kindly offered his space after we introduced ourselves and shared our vision. Once the property sale closes, we look forward to hosting a larger, open-house-style event where more community members can learn about our plans and get involved.
Thank you again for your attention to our coming program and your commitment to accurate reporting in our NW neighborhood. If you have any questions, please email me at jshowers@blanchethouse.org or our director, Scott Kerman, at skerman@blanchethouse.org.
I wonder, Allan, whether you could give us readers an overview of what the City code requires of an operator to the community in creating a shelter like this.
I am sympathetic to the local neighbors and their concerns. By Goose Hollow experience, they have good reason to assume this shelter will have some negative affect on their area, some of the time. But, while I love your comically extreme list of two neighborly options here, I genuinely have to also wonder exactly what Rose Haven is required, by law, to do regarding engaging neighbors in discussion of their plans. I honestly have no idea what is required by law or how they should be expected to give neighbors prior notice.
Apparently you do mean to suggest that there is, if not specific laws, some courtesy expectations that neighbors - and by extension, their neighborhood association - have regarding both notice and controlling critique of the plan, as you mention the NWDA president being offended that they received no word of the plan until a meeting was quietly leaked to a scant few. But, I am completely unaware that they are required, by any prevailing city statue or code, to do any such thing. If they are, I urge you to publish exactly what that is so real action can be taken against such unlawful behavior.
Yes, Rose Haven does seem, by this situation, to show little interest in engaging neighbors regarding these plans. I think we can all, and very fairly, deduce that they knew full well that opposition would surface and be vocal - causing them confrontation and delays they do not want. They clearly and knowingly took the clandestine route in this matter. And their instincts regarding that opposition are likely founded in knowing full-well what negative impact the shelter can bring to the neighborhood. So it's fairly reasonable to assume that their intended, quiet course of action, was purposeful, with the intent to open the shelter with little to no advance notice.
Yes, Rose Haven might wish to show courtesy and friendly, generous commitment to their neighbors by engaging them from the start regarding their discussion of plans for a local shelter. But, clearly, they feared that would be a derisive and delaying course of action.
And this brings me back to the central question: what are they really required by law to do? Are they required to give the neighborhood advance notice and entertain opposition, withholding said development until complaints are fielded and addressed or dismissed? Is that really city code? Or is it possible that we neighbors merely wish that such courtesy was a matter of law when, in fact, the City makes no such requirement of the operator? I am sure there are City zoning laws, building permit code, building and fire safety and occupancy laws that address the legality of placing this shelter in that neighborhood. But, what are the laws that govern the operator engaging it's neighbors or neighborhood association in these plans?
By learned example, United Methodist Church did quietly, and without notice to the neighbors, once open and operate a women and children shelter in Goose Hollow. And yes, just as mentioned here, there were times when this overnight housing separated a family causing the adult males to camp in cars or tent immediately adjacent and in our neighborhood - in violation of code. And this did, on rare occasions, spill out into loud fights between familial parties served and not served. After a few years this community service quietly folded, as secretly as it had been started - and with it the occasional neighborhood disruption. And, no, United Methodist did not police the neighborhood to protect it from loud family fights or unlawful overnight camping that was the result of their operating the shelter. This operator does what serves the needs of their congregation, usually motivated by the income it produces and never, ever operates in any manner to protect the interest of it's neighbors. Rose Haven might yet be the rare exception to this, but they seem to act like they are not.
I implore you to give us the legal requirements Rose Haven has to the neighborhood, required of them before enacting these plans, and assure all concerned that they have a reasonable expectation to be heard and their complaints addressed. Insulted and disappointed as they appear to be, presently I do not understand how the neighbors or their local association have legal rights to set any controls on this shelter. Otherwise, I assume like so many undesired businesses that come and go in a community, this shelter will open free of any municipal restraints, operate adding more neighborhood transient noise, safety and camping problems and eventually be forgotten - as another new venture arrives proposing to further degrade the community.
Blanchet House submitted this response:Thank you for your coverage and for ensuring your readers receive factual information about Blanchet House's forthcoming women's program, Bethanie’s Room. We want to offer a few clarifications to correct some inaccuracies that may mislead the public:
1. The quote, “This is a 75-bed women’s shelter that I think the mayor and city have been planning for a while,” attributed to Ken Thrasher, is incorrect. Bethanie’s Room is not a city-planned shelter but instead a privately operated and fully donor-funded initiative led by Blanchet House.
2. Regarding the quote from Todd Zarnitz, “It’s interesting that they have had zero conversations with the neighborhood about this location,” we’d like to clarify that our first neighborhood meeting, by invitation, is scheduled for May 31 at The Triple Lindy. This will be our first gathering with close neighbors, and we’re genuinely looking forward to meeting them. Members of our team have spent the past week walking the neighborhood to introduce ourselves personally to residents, business owners, and property managers.
3. The statement, “Neighbors are invited to a presentation on the proposal Saturday, May 31, 10 a.m.-noon, at The Triple Lindy, 1000 NW 17th Ave,” may give the impression of a public presentation. In reality, this is an initial meet-and-greet small gathering with residents and businesses close to the future site of Bethanie’s Room. Ryan, the owner of The Triple Lindy, kindly offered his space after we introduced ourselves and shared our vision. Once the property sale closes, we look forward to hosting a larger, open-house-style event where more community members can learn about our plans and get involved.
Thank you again for your attention to our coming program and your commitment to accurate reporting in our NW neighborhood. If you have any questions, please email me at jshowers@blanchethouse.org or our director, Scott Kerman, at skerman@blanchethouse.org.
Julie Showers
Communications & PR Director
Blanchet House
I wonder, Allan, whether you could give us readers an overview of what the City code requires of an operator to the community in creating a shelter like this.
I am sympathetic to the local neighbors and their concerns. By Goose Hollow experience, they have good reason to assume this shelter will have some negative affect on their area, some of the time. But, while I love your comically extreme list of two neighborly options here, I genuinely have to also wonder exactly what Rose Haven is required, by law, to do regarding engaging neighbors in discussion of their plans. I honestly have no idea what is required by law or how they should be expected to give neighbors prior notice.
Apparently you do mean to suggest that there is, if not specific laws, some courtesy expectations that neighbors - and by extension, their neighborhood association - have regarding both notice and controlling critique of the plan, as you mention the NWDA president being offended that they received no word of the plan until a meeting was quietly leaked to a scant few. But, I am completely unaware that they are required, by any prevailing city statue or code, to do any such thing. If they are, I urge you to publish exactly what that is so real action can be taken against such unlawful behavior.
Yes, Rose Haven does seem, by this situation, to show little interest in engaging neighbors regarding these plans. I think we can all, and very fairly, deduce that they knew full well that opposition would surface and be vocal - causing them confrontation and delays they do not want. They clearly and knowingly took the clandestine route in this matter. And their instincts regarding that opposition are likely founded in knowing full-well what negative impact the shelter can bring to the neighborhood. So it's fairly reasonable to assume that their intended, quiet course of action, was purposeful, with the intent to open the shelter with little to no advance notice.
Yes, Rose Haven might wish to show courtesy and friendly, generous commitment to their neighbors by engaging them from the start regarding their discussion of plans for a local shelter. But, clearly, they feared that would be a derisive and delaying course of action.
And this brings me back to the central question: what are they really required by law to do? Are they required to give the neighborhood advance notice and entertain opposition, withholding said development until complaints are fielded and addressed or dismissed? Is that really city code? Or is it possible that we neighbors merely wish that such courtesy was a matter of law when, in fact, the City makes no such requirement of the operator? I am sure there are City zoning laws, building permit code, building and fire safety and occupancy laws that address the legality of placing this shelter in that neighborhood. But, what are the laws that govern the operator engaging it's neighbors or neighborhood association in these plans?
By learned example, United Methodist Church did quietly, and without notice to the neighbors, once open and operate a women and children shelter in Goose Hollow. And yes, just as mentioned here, there were times when this overnight housing separated a family causing the adult males to camp in cars or tent immediately adjacent and in our neighborhood - in violation of code. And this did, on rare occasions, spill out into loud fights between familial parties served and not served. After a few years this community service quietly folded, as secretly as it had been started - and with it the occasional neighborhood disruption. And, no, United Methodist did not police the neighborhood to protect it from loud family fights or unlawful overnight camping that was the result of their operating the shelter. This operator does what serves the needs of their congregation, usually motivated by the income it produces and never, ever operates in any manner to protect the interest of it's neighbors. Rose Haven might yet be the rare exception to this, but they seem to act like they are not.
I implore you to give us the legal requirements Rose Haven has to the neighborhood, required of them before enacting these plans, and assure all concerned that they have a reasonable expectation to be heard and their complaints addressed. Insulted and disappointed as they appear to be, presently I do not understand how the neighbors or their local association have legal rights to set any controls on this shelter. Otherwise, I assume like so many undesired businesses that come and go in a community, this shelter will open free of any municipal restraints, operate adding more neighborhood transient noise, safety and camping problems and eventually be forgotten - as another new venture arrives proposing to further degrade the community.
"Intent"???? They "appreciate" skeptimism??? How about-- Yes. We are committed to community listening sessions.
How about --- Yes. Guide us to being the neighbor you need in YOUR community.