Comments on: Locally unwanted land use

By: concerned s hsv resident

concerned s hsv resident — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:27:43 +0000

Given the desires of residents throughout the city, it sounds like they should go in the parts of town that currently have the lowest percentage of homes, schools and churches; have vacant commercial-zoned land that is the farthest away from homes, schools, and churches; and have the lowest percentage of residential-zoned land. Doing something like that would be somewhat unfair in that it may allow them to be near some homes, but it would accomplish a goal of limiting halfway houses and transitional facilities to the lowest number possible in the city as a whole.

By: concerned s hsv resident

concerned s hsv resident — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:22:51 +0000

The zoning classification which would allow a halfway house or the like shouldn’t be “’proportionally distributed’” around the City,” as some areas have a higher concentration of homes than others, and are primarily residential areas. No one involved seems to want these near neighborhoods, schools, or churches, so why would Will Culver think spreading them out evenly across the city would be a good idea?

By: stumbled across your blog

stumbled across your blog — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:09:38 +0000

Racially motivated? Not in a literal sense. But. . . the demographics of the particular industrialized zoned areas are either lower income households or minorities. . . The thing is, implementing plans in areas where people have less money and education makes the process easier to go through. I firmly believe this could have been mapped out in a much better way. I will leave this as concise as possible, because I can get long winded. However, the industrial zones are not spread out they are hitting similar demographic terrains. Why can’t one be in the Grissom area? Lee area? and perhaps Huntsville High area? I just say this to show the lack of equal consistency. No one wants a facility of this nature near their home, place of worship, or childs school. . . so why is there no at least an equal disruption or discomfort. Lastly, as a tax paying citizen, I would personally rather spend my money to building a correctional facility (on the basis they’re going to be required) . . . and put this facility in a desolate area . . . than save a few bucks to renovate an older building in an area near family life. I could write several rebuttals. . . in my opinion. . . on the whole situation. . . but then again this is your blog! ha, not mine! I enjoyed stumbling across this, as I was looking for more news feed on the content.

Sincerely.

By: Ben

Ben — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:07:40 +0000

Someone — Bill Kristol, maybe — once said that given the choice between a program that works but sounds “mean,” and one that’s an utter failure but sounds “nice,” liberals will choose the latter every time. That’s Culver in a nutshell.

By: Reactionary

Reactionary — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:06:05 +0000

Thanks Brian.

Ben – well, I like Culver – he’s a natural politician (friendly, great personality) and I enjoy talking politics with him, plus he likes HSV as much as I do. I’ve harshed on him when I thought that was appropriate (noting in my first post about him that he needed to get used to free speech and differing opinions). I appreciate that he holds monthly town halls in his district and that he’s accessible. Your statement that he votes his ‘feelings’ on issues may have merit.

I admire that he speaks up even when his opinion may not be popular. For example, last night’s meeting was ~90% black and some people started to say that the City was dumping on North HSV because of race. Culver stood up and presented dissenting facts – he didn’t go along with that narrative even though he could have. BTW Showers didn’t stand up.

By: walt moffett

walt moffett — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:53:03 +0000

Familiar with the Salvation Army and Volunteers of America halfway houses which do fairly well. Inmates know there are much worse place they can be but there’s always someone won’t listen.

Guess they feared naming the suit happy outfit would lead to a suit too. Just adds to the mystery.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:55:08 +0000

Oh, and by the way, Reactionary — I’m not sure why you keep praising Will Culver so much. The guy has been a moralizing clown. He doesn’t think about issues so much as he emotes on them, and “feelings” trump all.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:50:49 +0000

It is ridiculous that these facilities can be built and what the locals think is irrellevant. Once again, the federal government rams stuff down our throats and we have very little say-so in the matter.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:32:31 +0000

Good report on the issue, Reactionary.

By: Reactionary

Reactionary — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:09:45 +0000

waltm – the City did not identify the contractor, and but the City said that the contractor’s letter was a response to a Request For Proposals from the Bureau of Prisons.

BOP residential re-entry center contractors include the Salvation Army and bunches of small companies and non-profits. I thought it might be the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) but they seem to prefer running larger facilities.

The City said that the closest correctional transitional housing facility is in Birmingham, and that the Bureau of Prisons is looking to build facilities to serve North Alabama. I don’t know how many facilities are planned or which Cities are going to be impacted (Florence? Decatur?).