You are here: Home › Addiction › 4-3: Council Rejects Rezoning for Reentry Home

4-3: Council Rejects Rezoning for Reentry Home

Can’t see the video? Click here.

UPDATE: At DW’s request, I’ve added more about the reentry home and its location, in the comments, below. But there’s still more. Watch the whole thing on the City’s web site. Choose the video for the 04/03/07 meeting. The reentry home discussion starts at 02:35:00 and ends around 04:02:38. (With a 12 minute break toward the end.)

6 Responses to "4-3: Council Rejects Rezoning for Reentry Home"

David Wharton says:

April 5, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Really effective video, CM.

Could you also post more info on the location of the neighborhood and the nature of the program?
Cara Michele says:

April 5, 2007 at 9:18 pm

From the Council agenda:

11. Ordinance rezoning from RS-9 Residential Single Family to Conditional Districtâ€”RM-8 Residential Multifamily with Rooming and Boarding Houses limited to six or less occupants for property located on the north side of Anderson Street between Mount Zion Street and Balboa Street–this matter received a 5 to 4 vote of the Zoning Commission to recommend approval of the request. (roll call vote) (Attachment #11 (PL(Z)07-09) to Council members)

12. Ordinance authorizing Special Use Permit for a Rooming and Boarding House limited to six or less occupants for property located on the north side of Anderson Street between Mount Zion Street and Balboa Street. (roll call vote) (Attachment #12 (PL(Z)07-10) to Council members)

Look at this map. (The subject property is on the north side of Anderson Street, but the green arrow is not the exact location.)

Malachi House is located at the corner of Huffine Mill Road and Balboa Street. Malachi House also owns the property (a school) at the corner of Huffine Mill and Mt. Zion. The backyards of the houses on the north side of Anderson abut Malachi’s property, including the subject property, which already houses a reentry home.

The reentry home is owned by Eugene Peterson, program director for Malachi House. As explained by Mr. Peterson, the reentry home is a residence for men who have successfully completed a long-term, residential treatment program at Malachi House (or other treatment facility) and who don’t have family to return to, or other housing options. It’s not a drug treatment program. It’s a home for graduates of those programs. The residents pay rent.

Originally, there were nine men living in the reentry house. When Peterson learned that was a violation of zoning laws, he reduced the number of men in the home and requested a zoning change. The request before Council on April 3rd was apparently his second request. (He asked for zoning for nine people before and they recommended that he change his request to “rooming house” with a maximum of six people. Peterson can legally rent the home to four unrelated adults under its current zoning, but he stated that the house is not self-supporting with only four people, and there is a strong need for reentry housing.)

A handful of neighbors expressed concerns about having recovering addicts in the neighborhood, but Peterson presented the signatures of 40 neighbors who supported him, and he also had the support of both Yvonne Johnson and Goldie Wells, who said they live nearby.

Mike Barber quoted a statistic about crime*, but Peterson pointed out that Malachi House has been in the neighborhood for 12 years without incident (it is a drug treatment program, with about 100 men), and the reentry home has been there at the subject property for some time, without incident, as well.

* There are many statistics about relapse and many statistics about the relationship between drug use and crime. It’s hard to pick one. So much depends on the circumstances. I’ve found nothing so far to back up Mr. Barber’s “guarantee” of crime in this circumstance.
David Wharton says:

April 6, 2007 at 9:01 am

Thanks for posting the additional information.

I’m impressed with the 40 neighbors who supported the rezoning!

That’s my idea of a “good neighborhood.”
Cara Michele says:

April 6, 2007 at 1:43 pm

I was also impressed with the support this rezoning seemed to have with neighbors. And it’s clear that Malachi House has been a good neighbor. Although the reentry house is owned by a staff member of Malachi House, and is not directly affiliated with Malachi House, there is certainly an indirect relationship, and Peterson testified that there had never been any incidents with the reentry house or the residents since it opened.

This was obviously a controversial rezoning. And the decision concerns me, because our Task Force to End Homelessness will soon be releasing a Ten Year Plan that is built around permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people, and those homes are supposed to be in the community, in neighborhoods. And chronically homeless people have a very high rate of substance abuse and mental illness. So where are they going to live? Where will the housing for them be? What neighborhood will welcome them? It just seems that even when you find a way to house homeless people, that someone will still say, “This isn’t the place.” OK… so where IS the place?
Chosen Fast » Archive » Where Is The Place? says:

April 6, 2007 at 1:52 pm

[...] My comments to David Wharton in this thread get to the heart of my concerns about a rezoning case this week. I thought it was worth repeating as a post: “This was obviously a controversial rezoning. And the decision concerns me, because our Task Force to End Homelessness will soon be releasing a Ten Year Plan that is built around permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people, and those homes are supposed to be in the community, in neighborhoods. And chronically homeless people have a very high rate of substance abuse and mental illness. So where are they going to live? Where will the housing for them be? What neighborhood will welcome them? It just seems that even when you find a way to house homeless people, that someone will still say, ‘This isnâ€™t the place.’ OKâ€¦ so where IS the place?” [...]
Burying Infested Bones In Greensboro at connecting*the*dots says:

April 18, 2007 at 5:25 pm

[...] The problem for past and present town planners and gatekeepers, is that we’re now living in the information age — their circle the wagon rhetorical tactics of old cannot quell the voices of residents who want answers, whether it be about 11/3/79 or Willow Oaks or re-zoning a city district to force a successful rehabilitation and homeless program to close their doors. [...]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply