It's ok to admit you were wrong...

The puffery of Tuesday night's Council meeting has finally been covered by the mainstream press, on the front page of today's City Paper. Long story short: A councilmember, in an what appears to have been an effort to halt the new installation of a home for disabled youth in his district, introduced legislation last year prohibiting rehabilitation homes in particular areas of town. At the time, Metro Legal warned the Council that they were getting in to murky waters if they passed the ordinance- the Fair Housing Act is pretty clear on the illegality of these kinds of prohibitions. The Council moved ahead with it anyway, changing the zoning of a property which had already been zoned for such services and which had been purchased with the intent of providing them.

When your own legal department tells you that an ordinance is likely unconstitutional and you pass it anyway, you really can't be all that surprised when you get sued. You really can't be all that surprised when the Department of Justice comes knocking. What should surprise us is that, in a year when Metro is parched for necessary funds to keep operating even basic services, the Council would be so reckless as to taunt the Department of Justice (and the federal grants monies that are linked to it) and assert local authority to defend its own discriminatory ordinance.

There are certainly times when the federal government oversteps its role, but this is not one of them. The protections of the Fair Housing Act are a part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. the same document that protects individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of their race, color and religion protect individuals from being discriminated against on the basis of a disability. Would the Council have passed an ordinance that prohibited Methodist Churches in agricultural areas? Or one that prohibited Italian American Leagues? Or one that said only white residents could live in Madison? It's the same law and the same protections that prohibit zoning ordinances that treat individuals with disabilities differently from any other resident. It would be egregious to the Council to pass an ordinance that prohibited Catholics from living downtown, but yet 20 Council Members gladly snubbed their collective noses (which is admittedly hard to do with your head in the sand) at the suggestion that the same protection be upheld for individuals with disabilities.

Personally, I continue to be surprised by the pompousness of some of our Council members, although the State of Tennessee apparently expects this kind of behavior. In fact, they've published a very helpful guide describing exactly how these kinds of ordinances are unconstitutional, one I would suggest our councilmembers at least skim.

There is always NIMBY push-back against the siting of rehabilitation homes. I live in a district that's host to more than 50% of all the group homes citywide- I know the arguments. But the weakness in the system is not in allowing group homes to provide essential rehabilitative and life services to the disabled. The weakness is in assuring the supervision and regulation of these homes to guarantee they are not places in which their residents are exploited. Well-run, well-supervised group homes are great neighbors. They're one of the most effective ways to support independent living for individuals with disabilities. They improve not only the lives of their residents, but the communities in which they sit. Poorly run group homes are exploitive, dangerous, and potentially deadly. They can contribute to crime and affect property values. They make their profit at the expense of the lives they are supposed to protect. But neither condition is a result of zoning. Both are a result of effective social service supervision.

If the Council was trying to push back on federal interference, as some have argued, they picked the wrong issue. Our humanity is already being called into question, with services instead of salaries being cut throughout the slashed budget. If you want to make a statement, go swim across the Cumberland. Don't do it at the expense of the constitutional rights of your constituents (and the federal dollars upon which our already threatened social services rely).

Comments

[S-townMike]

There is enough blame to go around. The Council was being its typical self. However, instead of vetoing the original bill, Mayor Purcell sent it back unsigned, which guaranteed passage. Nate Rau's piece this morning is misleading in writing that Karl Dean was running for Mayor when it passed. Legal Director Dean worked his post from the bill's November 2006 introduction through January 2007 (the bill passed THIRD reading early February 2007--so technically Rau is factual, but the reportage is not entirely honest). That was a lot of time to make phone calls and to discourage this bill.

And yet, the City Paper asks no tough questions of the Mayor's Office. I really have to wonder whether this story (including the CP editorial on the same subject) was written more by the Mayor's Office spin and less by the print media.

[Catherine]

It's an interesting twist on it, to be sure. I wondered why it wasn't covered on Tuesday morning, when coverage might have garnered some constituent calls.