Community Update

Dear Alderman Manestar, first I do not know which way any given alderperson voted re the BHGH building proposal went. I have to congradulate the Board for it's wisdom and health based rejection of the Madge location for the following reasons--which i also shared on the BHGH facebook page. i had heard that a 17,000 sq. foot plan was to house a high number of children. I was corrected by BHGH to a plan of just over 6,000 sq. ft. I completely disagreed with putting children in enough distress that they need to have transitional housing in a 'sardine can'. When i learned that my information of 17,000 was reduced to just over 6,000 i was amazed that this location was even a humane blip on the planning radar. i worked as an activites therapist in New Orleans and in Scotland in child psychiatry. What was most obvious was that the children who were admitted did not suffer from organic illness--but behavioral abberations secondary to a bad home situation. The behavioral abnormalities were children's NEGATIVE coping skills to manage and survive bad home conditions. Over time, the behavioral patterns were highly and significantly altered when the children had loving arms all around them on a regular basis. I add, even organically ill psychiatric children had demonstrative improvement under these circumstances. The Madge location did NOT offer enough room for children (minors) coming from homes, bad enough to cause removal from that home. Additionally, i had serious concerns about the five lanes of traffic that would be right outside this location as a safety issue. I took a kindly smack down rebuke from BHGH--who in the end said "God will give us a place." I had already written to them that God was telling BHGH what the Madge location offered was not good enough for His children in crisis. This was a very bad fit for those children. Coming from highly disrupted homes would sensitize the children (minors) to any feelings of hostility and anger. They are all too aware of what it means to see anger and resentment--or they would not be in transitional crisis housing. I learned that there City zoning ordinance after City ordinance was waived to force this bad fit. I asked BHGH exactly at what point they thought that complicated housing issues did not evoke negative responses from the neighbors. The home owners on Madge may have specifically chosen their homes based on the existing zoning ordinances. To waive one after another was an invitation to make these children (minors) feel the same chaos and hostility they were supposed to be avoiding via transitional housing. Seriously, at what point did anyone think the kids would NOT pick up the negative emotions surrounding them? I was stymied that the Madge location was even considered. My life-long work in many capacities with children with issues made the Madge location a head-scratcher--as "you are not seriously going to do this...?" Those children deserve better than being stuffed into this very poor and compromised location of basic family homes I congradulate the Board of Alderpersons for their sensitivity to the needs of children in crisis and voting down a bad location for their housing needs. Not a single element was good about this location from the mental health and stability of the chidren, to their safety, to the waiving of zoning ordinances--one after another---to squeeze them in. This was not a well thought out choice--and the blessed Board of Alderman did not allow conditions for further tramatizing or endangering the children. Purely from years of experience, I tell you the Board voted in the best interest of those children. Thank you and God will give them a far better location--one with adequate space and safety. I would have put this up on the Patch, but have forgotten how to use it.  

I again commend and thank the Board of Alderpersons for their courage to say "No." God bless all of you for seeing the wrong and saying "No." all my love, maureen wheat