0

DOJ involved in community residence dispute

ALBANY, Ga. -- While the Albany-Dougherty Planning Commission refused Thursday to reconsider Randy and Lauren Bailey's application for a variance that would allow the couple to locate a personal care community residence at 910 N. Davis St., despite City Attorney Nathan Davis' warning that the commission may not have considered applicable federal law in denying the request, it does not appear the almost yearlong saga is finished.

Randy Bailey told The Albany Herald after the Planning Commission meeting that he had been contacted by Department of Justice officials concerned that the city is ignoring the rights of disabled citizens by denying them an opportunity to take up residence in the North Davis home.

"I didn't contact (DOJ officials), they contacted me," Bailey said. "They said they'd kept up with the case in the newspaper and wanted to hear my side of the story. I told them what we'd been through, and they indicated there was some wrongdoing (on the city and Planning Commission's part).

"I know DOJ contacted Nathan Davis, too, and I figure that's why we were asked to come to that meeting (Thursday). I want to make it clear that we did not ask (the Planning Commission) to reconsider our application. Nathan is the one that had that put on the agenda."

Davis told the Planning Commission that he wanted to make sure the board had not refused to make reasonable accommodations that would allow residents to move into the Baileys' proposed facility, which was rejected because of a new city ordinance that does not allow community residences to be located within 1,000 feet of other such residences. The North Davis home is located within 735 feet of another such facility.

"'Reasonable accommodations' are the buzz words in the industry right now, and the question I wanted to pose to this board is whether you would be fundamentally altering the zoning ordinance by granting a variance in this case," Davis said. "The law says specifically 'a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such (handicapped) person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling' may constitute discrimination."

Members of the Planning Commission stuck by their decision to adhere to the ordinance that, Planning Director Paul Forgey pointed out, was enacted after the Baileys had submitted an application to operate a community residence at the North Davis dwelling and the Albany City Commission had enacted a moratorium on such residences.

"Do we throw away the ordinance and start from scratch?" board member Sanford Hillsman said. "We haven't discriminated against anyone; we're just following the requirements of the ordinance."

Davis replied, "The question is, do you harm your ordinance by granting reasonable accommodations specific to this case?"

Board member Stephen Kaplan, as he did at the April 4 Planning Commission meeting at which the board had initially denied the Baileys' variance request, questioned the precedence granting a variance to the 1,000-foot distance would set.

"If you're going to stick hard and fast to the ordinaces that are passed, why have a variance system in place?" Bailey asked.

After the meeting the care home operator again wondered at the "hypocrisy" of the commission.

"They say they're worried about setting a precedence if they grant me a variance, but what did they do just before our hearing today?" Bailey said. "They granted a variance for Sunnyland Farms, which if I'm not mistaken is owned by someone (Jane Willson) that has given a great deal of money to the city. It's hard not to think this is something personal against us."

Davis told the commission it would need a request from one of its six members that voted against the variance in order to reconsider its denial of the Baileys' request. Board member Jimmy Hall made such a request, but Chairman William Geer noted that he could not do so because he voted in favor of the variance at the April 4 meeting.

The issue died when no commissioner asked for reconsideration of the vote.

"This is far from over, I promise you that," Bailey said. "What they're doing, for whatever reason, is just wrong. That's all I'll say about it until the Department of Justice completes their investigation, which they've told me they are conducting."

City Manager James Taylor confirmed Thursday evening that the city had received a letter from DOJ asking for information about the case.

"I don't know the significance of their request at this time," Taylor said. "They've asked for information, and we're providing it. Whether or not there needs to be further involvement by the city depends on what (DOJ) does. Nathan has, I think, a good grasp on the situation, and he feels that as long as our laws are equally applied, fairly and reasonably, we'll be OK.

"But I will say that if we have done something wrong (in the eyes of the federal government), we will fix it."

Also at thursday's meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning request by Michael E. Gardner that will allow him to subdivide property at 3913 Rodnor Forest Lane to build two duplexes, and granted a setback variance request for Sunnyland Farms at 2314 Willson Road so that the pecan company can separate its plant operations.

Forgey and Code Enforcement Director Mike Tilson discussed elements of Dougherty/Albany zoning ordinances relating to requirements and regulations for parking and storing commercial vehicles and trailers in residential districts.

"Right now, there are contradictions with commercial vehicle and truck parking ordinances," Tilson said. "One forbids trucks in residential districts, but one allows vehicles to park for eight hours. Whatever decision this board makes, I would hope that you would work to put the new ordinance in sync with the truck parking ordinance."

The board asked Forgey and Tilson to work together to provide a completed ordinance that it could vote on at its next meeting.

Comments

Sister_Ruby_Two 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"Hi I'm from the Government and I'm here to hose you"

0

albanypolitics 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Sister Ruby, It seems you are mad at the world. Its very hard to believe you have put up such a fight being you are a mother of a disabled person yourself. Give it a rest. The city is tired you you as well as the planing and zoning board, City commisioners, and probably anyone else you come into contact with daily. Maybe you should put more effort into caring for this child you use as a crutch instead of all the time you have fighting for something that now seems to be COMPLETELY out of your hands??? As a neighborhood, we are embarassed of you!! GO TO BED!!

0

Jax 11 months, 2 weeks ago

albanypolitics thinks you are Anne Mitchell.

0

Sister_Ruby_Two 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well albanypolitics is an IDIOT, then.

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

You talkin to me Jack! I am putting up a fight and my disabled son is putting up a fight because he himself likes living in a residential area and does not want this area to become institutionalized in character, which is exactly what the distance ordinance protects. So, we are fighting for all disabled people that are being removed from institutionalized settings to guarantee that where they will be located is in a residential area separated by 1000 feet from any other business, in business to house disabled patients. These people deserve to live in a residential setting not an area so stacked with personal care homes that the residential setting they so desire and need is diluted! And btw what neighborhood do you claim to represent, that is so embarrassed? I am embarrassed that anyone with children or family members disabled or not would think that this location is appropriate for persons who can not protect and defend themselves to live!

0

waltspecht 11 months, 2 weeks ago

You might want to change that to "Hi I'm from the government, here to enforce the Jackass laws you allowed us to pass because you didn't take the time to calculate their full affect".

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I find it kind of hard to believe Mr. Bailey's statement that he doesn't know who contacted the DOJ, and that he did not. I also don't buy the idea that someone in the DOJ sits around reading the newspaper and followed his plight. As one who has fought with governments of all types over the years, no one ever contacted me and said they had read about my problems in the newspaper and wanted to help. Pleaseeeeeee these are government workers....they don't come to you...YOU go to them. Is this going to turn into a "he said/she said" contest? I think someone is fibbing. Since the DOJ is involved (?) I will just sit back and wait for names of the DOJ folks. I like to know the names of the people so that when I write my letters to the DOJ I at least have a name.

0

FryarTuk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

No telling. But "disabled citizens" are the watch words. The AAPD & similar orgs comb the papers, if there is a whiff of discrimination DOJ will be all over ABY like a bad suit. Mr. Taylor shouldn't be so smug about Nathan Davis' capacity here. AAPD & co is the only lobby that could go against Wayne LaP and the terrorista fringe and kick butt in DC.

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I suppose with Albany's long history of "civil rights" violations, etc., the DOJ's combing the papers doesn't surprise me. Like WeAreThey said tho, maybe someone does need to check on the Bailey's, especially if they have a background of dubious business practices, as someone once mentioned in an earlier Squawk on this same subject.

0

ittybittyme 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Albanypolitics, I DO NOT WANT this facility in my neighborhood. I as well as others have fought the city commission and explained why our reasons for our decisions regarding this issue. If you like the idea so much, them you let the Baileys( check their records...numerous legal issue from past fiascos regarding personal home businesses) come into your neighborhood and make "reasonable accommodations" for this "business."

1

WeAreThey 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I have to agree that Mr. Bailey obviously reached out to the DOJ or had someone else do it. Regardless of the side you take on the issue of where to locate this home, you have to consider that inviting the DOJ was purely for the protection of his personal interests. These folks make their living operating these homes. It is not for charitable or philanthropic purposes. Now, because the Baileys made a bad investment, they want to hold up their clients as people who need the protection of the Feds.

1

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Sniff, sniff...something just smells funny about the whole DOJ involvement to me. As you said, he either got them involved in some way or has had someone do his work for him. Fryar said that the DOJ combs the papers......hmm...maybe the Bailey's are also newspaper delivery persons.

0

VSU 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Why don't they just build a home out in the woods somewhere? That way they would not be bothering anyone. No matter where they try to locate within the city, the neighborhood residents will protest it, in which I don't blame them.

1

stc1993 11 months, 2 weeks ago

They already have one in Doublegate. The city ought to get the DOJ to investigate their business pratices.

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

What kind of home? A personal home or a personal care home? I checked the Bailey Home Health Company out on most of the sites you can go to for that purpose and they sure are quiet or vague about what they are, what they do, etc....and also the names of those on their board of directors. Hmmmm...

0

mik178 11 months, 2 weeks ago

It is amazing that so many people in this town ar willing to blindly comment on issues they have little or no knowloge on. Their comments show it. I have been personly involved in this issue since day one and the Baileys have not contacted anyone seekeing leagal help of anykind me neither for that matter. And Mr bailey is correct when he says Nathan Davis filed for the variance. Not the Bailey's. Also If everyone would do some research they would find that the DOJ has made investigations in several states and filed suits against many cities for very simialr cases.They dont have watchdogs or some tip line they watch cases like this because it was the DOJ that has started these community living arrangements. They are the ones who wrote the law on this and they want to make sure that local laws and ordinances are not in any conflict of the federal. But there are a lot of people in this town who love the controversy and just wants nothing more than to say someting is red when everyone eslse says its black. So please before you comment do a little resarch so you dont sound so dumb. Also if you are the Rawson Circle people who live nowhere near this home but speak out against it , yes I know where you live, but thats not the point be brave enough to put the real reason why you dont want this home in the area and dont use property values as an excuse. I mean you have crack houses closer to you than this potential personal care home. I can post photos if you like. So how could this be a bad thing .Put your real reasons in there. Paul Forgy has already proven no negative impacts on the neighborhood, proprty values or traffic. If you want to shoot from the hip like so many in Albany do then go ahead. You can say what you want. But when you know the facts it show just how stupid and ignorant so many people in this town are.

1

FryarTuk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

mik said: " I mean you have crack houses closer to you than this potential personal care home. I can post photos if you like. "

I LIKE! I LIKE! Yes post them by all means. What a great public service. I am excited. I have alerted the drug unit and they will be watching. You have a captive audience. Don't make us wait long now. You've declared your hand and your credibility is dependent upon your follow through.

2

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Exactly what proof did Mr. Forgey provide to the Planning Commission that showed no negative impact would occur on the neighborhood, property values, or traffic????.....I am waiting for your answer, oh....yeah because he provided no proof he just said it wouldn't. Well the last time I checked that is not proof that's an opinion.

0

RedEric 11 months, 2 weeks ago

First, the State of Georgia was sued by Bazalon to close institutions and to create home care situations. Second, the distance between home care businesses in atlanta cannot be closer than 2000 feet. Here it is 1000 feet. The reason is to prevent clusters of these businesses which could overwhelm emergency services. Paul Forgy has seen pictures of existing home care businesses that undoubtedly reduce surrounding property values. The slide show was presented by Anne of Green Gables. He will remember her. I don't know who you are, but your points are wrong or slanted to support your agenda.

1

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Also, another correction mik178, the DOJ does NOT write the laws as you stated. They do enforce them tho....ergo, it is called the Department of Justice. Laws are written by the state of Georgia Legislative body. If you are referring to a US law....it is a long road to become a law and has to be passed by the Congress. I do not think I or anyone else nitpicks but since you know the Bailey family - - is it true they had problems in the past with dubious business practices as someone mentioned? I am curious.

0

waltspecht 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Just for the record, there are computer programs that monitor and click on certain key phrases or words. This is what is used to monitor our world in cyber space. The DOJ probably runs such programs because it assures their jobs. If you do not have any work, you might not get funding. So you look to all sources of information to keep the dollars flowing.

0

mik178 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Ok let me say first i should have said the DOJ enforces the laws which were wrote way back in 1999 which applied to all states not just georgia. And the Bazelon Center never sued the state of georgia. A settlement was reached by the DOJ and the state of georgia around 2007 to close mental hospitals and place the individuals in community based living arrangements which should have happened way back in 1999. The DOJ is looking into this particualr case becuase there may have not been reasonable accomodations made. Maybe you should study these words carefully and research how they are used this particular case before commenting on this any further. Also these are not businesses they are homes and are treated as so. They have no signs, no offices, no dumpsters or anything else that makes them look or function any different from any other home in the neighborhood. Would you call rental companies homes a business? There are rental homes all over the place and the people living in them are not always related. There is no difference. I dont know what the residents fear but a well maintained home with four individuals who cannot take care of themselves through no fault of their own living in it should not be a worry. This town has bigger problems. Also there has never been any shady business practices by Bailey Health Care. They have one of the highest ratings for personal care in this region. It has always been run by the book and always met or went above and beyond state compliance which is reviewed on regular basis. Everyone has opinions but not everyone has the facts.

1

FryarTuk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

mik said: " I mean you have crack houses closer to you than this potential personal care home. I can post photos if you like. "

Maybe you should send along the pictures of the crack houses. Inquiring minds are waiting.

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Re: the statement about rental homes not being a business, and your reasons why they are not. Sorry, but even tho my rental homes are not a business, they still make money for me...just as the personal care home would be making money for the Bailey family so I do not buy your argument there. Businesses make money, in my opinion and isn't making money off the deal what the Baileys are trying to do? True, everyone has opinions and not everyone has the facts, and isn't that what I am here asking you for? You seem to have a lot of knowledge about them. I am willing to read anything you have to say.

0

albanypolitics 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Bottom line.....You can't choose your neighbor, be it a sexual predator or a disabled consumer. Businesses have to make money to survive and luckily we have good folks left like the Baileys to take care of these folks. DOJ has a law suit -vs-State of Georgia and visits towns weekly. THey visited the Baileys home in Doublegate and found no citations. I have worked for *** for 15 years and have tired time and time again to work for them but they have a waiting list for hire due to most employees being with them since they opened. If anyone needs investigating, its other agencies such as the one I work for. It would be a compliment to have this provider to be in my neighborhood. How many of you have a disabled friend or family member that could be directly or indirectly impacted by this ordinance?

0

mik178 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I never said that the Bailey's shouldnt make money and I nor anyone else have said that they were not. That is what conducting business is for. But read my comment more closely. what I said is refering to physical location of the home. It is a home and it is treated as so. There are no signs no offices nothing to make them appear any different from any other residence in the neighborhood. The bussiness offices are at a totally different location. I am not trying to split hairs over the wording of this but Agirl if you own rental homes and you enter a contract with a tenant to rent your home you are providing a service and in reality you are conducting a business which you are required to have a license for. But all of this is still besides the point of what this article was about. This issue is about whether or not the city commissioners and planning and zoning have violated any federal laws dealing with fair housing. In cases such as this where Bailey Health Care had already applied for permits, met with the individuals and thier families that the state had assigned to live in this home long before the moritorium was put in place and the ordinances were approved, reasonable accomodations must be considered. Besides why should the city commission have the power to tell people where they cannot live just because they cannot live on their own.

0

FryarTuk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

mik said: " I mean you have crack houses closer to you than this potential personal care home. I can post photos if you like. "

This issue is about whether you just bleat and bleat and bleat. Send the pictures of the crack houses along. Inquiring minds want to see. You said you could send them, now do it.

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

MIK178....I hate to nitpick but here I am again to make a correction to a statement you gave. You stated directly to me and I quote..."Agirl if you own rental homes and you enter a contract with a tenant to rent your home you are providing a service and in reality you are conducting a business which you are required to have a license for." Not so,as I am not running a boarding house, which would require a license in the state....also I would have to provide smoke detectors in the rooms, and inform the "boarders/tenents" if there was any lead based paint in the facility if built before 1978. I own rental property, I don't rent out rooms, ergo....no business license is required.

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

mik178...PS and please please please show the crack house pics. Enquireing minds want to know. And it will calm down Fryar..... tee hee.

0

WeAreThey 11 months, 2 weeks ago

No Mik, the point of this discussion is that the Baileys, in the interest of their personal profits, have visited the DOJ upon this community, thereby allowing the opportunity for the wishes of the local taxpayers and their elected representatives to forever be subjugated to a federal court order. In other words, no more planning and zoning decisions for us without DOJ review. This is not about the Baileys' 4 clients - no matter how much they are shamelessly used as pawns. They just happen to be pawns in a legally protected class. This is about a for-profit business using whatever means available to protect a meager investment - to what may be the long-term detriment of this community.

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The Bailey's have never applied for any permits prior to the moratorium nor did they file an occupational tax certificate. And I can guarentee you that the state had not already assigned these patients to this home prior to the moratorium as the current state and condition of the home does not meet state requirements for person with memory care issues. The only thing Mr. Bailey applied for was to make a request for a Waiver of the Moratoruim that had been put in place and on March 11 of 2013 he filed to request a variance to the new distance ordinance, but Mr. Bailey currently has no right to request a variance on property he does not own, unless the owners request a variance and appoint him as their agent which has not occured here. Someone is feeding you a bunch of hogwash. Call Planning and zoning and ask them for all the permits that have been filed for on 910 N. Davis. I have their respone in an e-mail and it says "there have been no permits or applications filed for this address."

0

RedEric 11 months, 2 weeks ago

October 20, 2010 DOJ and Georgia reached an agreement on a lawsuit by Bazelon to remove disabled people from state institutions and place them in communities. The house proposed to use as a care home IS inside the Rawson Garden Historic District. The proposed house IS well inside the 1000 foot limit which is half the limit in Atlanta. The house and grounds do not meet the requirements for a handicapped person and will have to extensively modified. You cannot modify a house inside an historic district that changes the outside character of the house. The original application listed three residents, now you state there will be four. I read your comments and they are mostly wrong or biased. You want us to follow yor rules, but you don't want to follow ours.

0

gotanyfacts 11 months, 2 weeks ago

This is just one example of how our nation has strayed from one of the most important principles of our constitution; the concept that we are all equal under the law. Now, there are multiple instances where federal and state regulations require just the opposite. It's easy to let the good feeling of helping or protecting an unfortunate group cause us to overlook the rip it creates in that principle. That principle is now almost in shreds.

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

@mik178 Fact: the Bailey’s filed the request for a variance to the 1000 ft distance ordinance. To request a variance to any ordinances relating to property, you must be the owner of the property. The owner can appoint an agent to represent him before the Planning Commission. The Bailey’s provided a notarized statement/verification that as of 3/11/2013, the records for Albany/Dougherty County Georgia showed that Eric T. Bailey and Laura Bailey were the owners of the property located at 910 North Davis. The record books for Albany/Dougherty County do no show this. At the April 4 hearing for the Bailey’s request for the variance, Mr. Bailey was made aware that this was an issue in that he had to be the owner or authorized agent in order to seek a variance and that he needed to file a deed showing he was the owner or bring them the deed to show proof. Yesterday, a reconsideration to the denied variance was asked for by Nathan Davis. Interestingly, like the DOJ, Nathan opened his statement to the Commission telling them that he too had been reading the paper, following the story and was concerned that the Commission might not have considered the “reasonable accommodation” clause of the Fair Housing. Nathan was told that, no, it never got that far, a) proof of ownership was an issue and also the Commission was concerned about any precedence’s they would be setting if they allowed the variance in that the Commission just passed the ordinances less than 2 months ago. Further, Mr. Bailey came to this reconsideration hearing again without proof of ownership and the Deed office still has no deed filed showing Mr. Bailey is the owner of the property, YET our City Attorney and Planning Director were hair-lipped to try and get his variance approved. To be cont....

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Carlton Fletcher when are you going to get your facts straight? Is it you who is feeding the DOJ false information, because you are certainly feeding the citizen of Albany with your reporting with false information. Are you a journalist in the capacity of this article or is this an opinion column! In Mr. Bailey's letter to the planning commission, his own words were that he "acquired the property in September of 2011". He then states that he went to the planning and zoning office in September of 2011 and spoke with a staff member, Ms. Brazewell and told her of his intentions for the property located at 910 N. Davis. She told him that at that time there would be no zoning problems for him to operate a personal care home. She was correct. For an ENTIRE year, Mr. Bailey could have applied for an Occupational Tax Certificate to operate the personal care home and he would have been granted the OTC. Mr. Bailey, though never applied for an OTC to operate a personal care home at the 910 N. Davis location. In fact, to date he has never applied for an OTC to operate a personal care home at that location. In September of 2012, Mr. Forgey, in his concern regarding litigation stemming from Fair Housing Act law suits against City ordinances in CALIFORNIA (mind you) and by the Bazalon Suit against the state of GA claiming that the state was "warehousing mentally disable individuals in institutionalized settings, and in particular a facility in Thomasville which housed some 400 patients", went to the Planning Commission and City Commissioners and told them that it was his recommendation that the city review its ordinances as they relate to personal care homes so that the city would be in compliance with all issues surrounding these litigations. The agreement reached with the state of GA and Bazalon was that this facility in Thomasville would be closed down and these patients would be integrated into personal care home living arrangements in RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods, removing them from an institutionalized setting! This lawsuit against the state of GA also prompted the state of GA to review state laws regarding personal care homes. In January of this year, the state of GA gave personal care homes for 2 or more residents its own section and definition, just as Albany has just done, removing the somewhat private residential status that personal care homes enjoyed, as well as adding a multitude of various rules and regulations to make sure that BUSINESSES and or individuals that operated these type homes were providing the best, safest quality of care to the residents. That is why, as we read a few months ago, that the Fire Chief was now mandated by the state to inspect personal care homes with 2 or more residents which until January, they were unable to do so because they were considered private residences. To be cont....

0

Sister_Ruby_Two 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Fletcher's the penultimate professional. Just ask him.

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Now, back to September of 2012, a year after Mr. Bailey told a staff member at the Planning Department of his intent with the property, but still had never filed any paperwork, application, building permits to do any accommodating construction for the handicapped residents, NOTHING, Mr. Forgey (not Karnac the Great, but Paul Forgey, the Planning Director with the City of Albany) presented his concerns to the city commissioners that the city needed to review the city's ordinances regarding personal care homes, the commissioners agreed and placed a moratorium on OTC's filed for the purposes of operating a personal care home until the ordinances could be reviewed and brought up to compliance. There were no pending OTC's at the time of the moratorium being put in place. Mr. Forgey and his staff researched and drafted and presented and recommended new definitions of personal care homes and ordinances relating to same. From September 2012 until February 2013 the newly drafted and proposed ordinances went back and forth from the city commissioners to the Planning Comission to Forgey's office. The result was, at the time the new ordinances were passed, considered very well researched and in compliance with all issues that were sought to be addressed. During the moratorium period, Mr. Bailey filed his first ever application that would have documented his intent with 910 N. Davis and that was an application to Waive the Moratorium. The city commissioners voted to NOT waive the moratorium as they were in hopes of getting close to having the ordinances ready. At the City commission meeting that Mr. Bailey attended seeking the waiver, he was asked several questions by the City commissioners, to include: Have you made any Capital improvements on the property...do you own the property...the commissioners determined that he had not made any capital improvements on the property prior to the moratorium being put in place and that he had acquired the property more than a year prior to the moratorium under a FIVE year lease. Shortly thereafter, the new ordinances were adopted by the city commission. To be cont....

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

The snag for Mr. Bailey and his 910 N. Davis location came about with a distance requirement of a thousand feet separating the operation of one personal care from another. The distance of 1,000 feet the Planning Department's highly paid Director, Mr. Forgey, argued for in the months preceding the adoption of the new ordinances claiming they were needed to make sure that residential neighborhoods remained residential and grouping of areas filled with personal care homes did not occur. If not for the distance ordinance, the city would run the risk of appearing or allowing the "institutionalizing" of an area for the purpose of placing disabled individuals. Further, that the distance regulation was placed as such to protect the residents moving into a personal care home and not so much the neighborhood where the personal care home was located, other than to make sure that persons were being placed in residential locations and not institutionalized locations and reduce the possible cluster of personal care homes thereby not institutionalizing an area. This is the very reason the state of GA was sued in the first place, because we were warehousing mentally handicapped persons in institutionalized settings. We can't remove them from a facility only to relocate them to an institutionalized zone/area in a city. They must be relocated to a residential setting and that is what the 1000 foot distance protects. The city of Atlanta has a 2,000 foot distance requirement. Other cities have more, some have less, but this is the distance that Mr. Forgey proposed and recommended based on research of the law, ordinances in other cities, and experts in this area. Unfortunately for Mr. Bailey, the 910 N. Davis Street is located approximately 500 feet from Englewood Personal Care Home's Administrative offices and 765 feet from Engelwood's Personal Care home Residence. For the Planning Commission to have allowed for the variance could have made the City of Albany appear to be setting up a zoned or specific area to place disabled persons, thereby institutionalizing an area which is in direct conflict with what the State of Ga has been court ordered to do away with. The end.

0

FryarTuk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

mlk, are you going to post the pictures of the crack houses or not?

gotanypictures?

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

There was no original OTC filed by the Bailey's prior to the moratorium. I posted a lengthy response of true facts, but AH has yet to post! Go figure!!! Surprised? No.

0

RedEric 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Thank you Anne of GG. Facts are such a problem for some people. Bailey and Forgy seem to be working some kind of deal. Fletch wouldn't know the truth unless it was.....no he still wouldn't know the truth.

0

anneofgreengables 11 months, 2 weeks ago

You are welcome, RedEric. It's amazing how unfactual this whole ordele has been. And lawd the rudeness of people when they are called out on untruths. Unbelievable! Mr. Bailey could've near about started a personal care home on the roof top of that home on 910 N. Davis for an entire year, but HE chose not to file an OTC to do so. One of the criteria that the Planning Commission was called to look at when making their decision to allow the vairiance or not was, is the burden of the ordinance self-imposed. This is totally self-imposed. As our grandma's used to say, always wear you clean underwear out as never know when you will be in an accident. Same thing here, always secure your business as you never know when the laws are going to change, in this case he would have been grandfathered in.

0

agirl_25 11 months, 2 weeks ago

anne, thanks for filling the readers in. Now we will wait for mik178 to post his rebuttal and the pictures he says he has that Fryar is so eager to see. Yes, Red, it does appear someone is not playing by the rules, huh?

0

FryarTuk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

mlk, where are the pictures of the crack houses you declared you would post if we like. Well "WE LIKE". You are not proving to be a person of honesty here.

0

Amazed2 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm certainly not against elderly and disabled rights but the local neighbors should have rights too. Basically this is simply a Commercial business wanting to open and operate in a residential neighborhood. Who will compensate the neighbors for loss property values or even more they cannot find a buyer to sell too. Now who pays for this???

0

Seeker2 11 months, 2 weeks ago

In Albany's prettiest neighborhood, non resident owners are not doing their part to screen residents. While recent activities to improve the area and support from APD to patrol it are beginning, none of this has shown great improvement yet. Also Code Enforcement has not kept up with complaints made for years. If the Baileys are just going to lock their clients into the 'Home' and not do any socialization with them, why is it better to remove them from their familiar surroundings where they now reside? Why would the Baileys even think of putting almost totally institutionalized adults in a setting where some questionable folks within a few short blocks could gain access to clients? How can 2 people keep 4 adults watched 24/7 and take care of this and their other 'Homes'? Hopefully, the area will get needed renovation and it might be possible to add a rental into the plan for just such folks needing community help. Now there are too many individuals with health issues [physical, mental, and both] in the area. Those wishing to be good and caring neighbors have their hands full already. The efforts of all city officials, now DOJ, Baileys, and hundreds of residents could have been used better to serve all members of society instead of this mess continuing a day longer when it is a definite code violation before it ever opens.

0

ittybittyme 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Anne has done her homework. I live in Anne's neighborhood. I DO NOT want this home in my neighborhood for all the reasons Anne stated. Have had negative experience with personal care home, that suddenly appeared on Westgate,...my family member and her neighbors got zero input regarding that sudden appearance. My friend's daughter was placed in that personal care home and the care has not been great. She received much better care when she was in a facility in Thomasville. I have seen school children going in and out of that westfatenpersonal care home on Westgate and black males dressed in casual clothes with sagging pants hanging out talking to others in f driveway. Tried to shoot video with my smartphone but it was too dark. Why is that allowed to go on in that neighborhood. After seeing that, I decided I do not want a home like that in my neighborhood

0

Jacob 11 months, 2 weeks ago

"Why is that allowed to go on in that neighborhood"

Sorry, you just cant' keep black males and children out of your neighborhood any more like fifty years ago. FYI, its not agains the law to be black, male or a child. How can you not see how racist that sounds?

0

Sign in to comment