Tuesday, February 7, 2012

LR Board defers zoning ordinance that hampers vet center

Posted by Max Brantley on Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:29 PM

LATE UPDATE: At 9:44 p.m., the City Board voted unanimously to delay action on a broad zoning ordinance for four weeks. The proposed vets center dominated much of the discussion, but an outpouring of objections from the real estate and business community about unintended consequences from a broad zoning ordinance not in final form until today was the cause of the delay.

From my earlier post:

The Little Rock City Board is two hours into a a discussion about an emergency change in the zoning ordinance that would, among other things, require the Department of Veterans Affairs to get a conditional use permit to open a day center for veterans at 10th and Main. Under existing law, the center is allowed by right in the zone, though it first would have to pass a Board of Adjustment review for the building plans.

Several directors said it was important to require a public hearing process for the broad range of institutions covered in the ordinance — from mental health facilities, to group homes, to religious organizations to businesses that sell alcohol, including convenience stores.

Directors Erma Hendrix and Kenneth Richardson both noted that they and others had pushed for years for measures to limit proliferation of alcohol sales, but the issue suddenly came to the fore in the rush to stop the veterans center.

Mayor Mark Stodola tried to make it appear the ordinance was primarily a response to long complaints about a proliferation of alcohol outlets. He pointed to maps drawjn up by staff showing incidents of crime around such outlets. A conditional use permit for liquor outlets, if granted, would face a potential legal challenge. It effectively gives the city board control over allowing alcohol sales, a power specifically given to state regulators.

A couple of dozen people spoke along familiar lines about the vets center — fear of degradation of a residentiial neighborhood on the part of some who live nearby; defense of the needs of veterans from others.

I suspect the VA will proceed with its plans regardless of the outcome. It has a lease and a good plan for the facility. It will seek a conditional use permit if necessary. The public hearing arguments then would be repeated. Neighbors won't want it in their backyard. But what backyard neighbor will accept it or any of the other problematick businesses now opened up to an arbitrary decision-making policy. One neighbor said no area with residences and small businesses would be suitable for a facility that provided showers, meals and services to people who include homeless and those with mental and drug abuse problems. Which leaves what?

The real estate industry and representiatives of the convenience store business asked for a delay because of the broad impact of the ordinance and the hurryup consideration, less than a week's notice. Unforeseen consequences, as one said, are almost certain to arise. The ordinance was amended just today to cover convenience stores that sell only beer, not liquor. That's popular with some directors, such as Doris Wright, but an attorney emphasized the capriciousness of setting a policy that would allow only neighborhood unhappiness to bar an otherwise legitimate business.

The board broke shortly after 8 p.m. for a recess with 14 speakers still on the list to make comments. It returned for 90 more minutes of comments before deciding on a delay. It will be interesting to see if the VA forges ahead in the narrow window with work on its project (the owner of the building spoke of his investment and the legal and valid contract he'd entered after due diligence and notice to the city of the plans two months ago).

Further thoughts from after the break:

Powerful comments came from Herb Rule, a lawyer, Marine vet and founder of the Stewpot feeding program. He said race was an undercurrent in opposition to the vets center and he said those served at the Stewpot rarely caused problems. But he said the larger issue was the folly of emergency adoption of an ill-considered ordinance. A young mental health worker who plans to move to a home near the proposed vets center spoke powerfully, too, about race being a factor in fear of veterans and she said concerns about them were exaggerated from her own work experience. Ask youself, she asked the booard and neighbors, if fears would be the same about a young, homeless white woman as opposed to an older black man.

Speaker after speaker raised the issue of consequences for businesses and an overly broad brush was a theme developed by several directors in closing discussion.

Stodola closed by defending his interest in serving the homeless and veterans and argued that the process has always been about providing a citizen voice in the process. The city's record, unfortunately, is years of failure in providing a homeless center on its side of the river (North Little Rock takes money from Little Rock to do the job) and a persistence in trying to encourage the VA to join in the city's use of a poorly designed and aginig former resuce mission in a remote part of town. The VA says the building isn't suitable and it is prevented by federal law from sharing resources with non-veterans.

As finally written, the ordinance could have required conditional use permits for drug stores and grocery stores that sell beer and left many with questions about what, exactly, constituted a convenience store.

Tags: ,

Speaking of Vets Center, Little Rock Board Of Directors

Comments (11)

Showing 1-11 of 11

Add a comment

I hope the VA goes ahead and rams this down Mark Stodola's and Tim Griffin's throats. Voters need to remember both of them and how they have handled this the next time an election rolls around. Sadly, it looks like Timmy is going to get a pass. He ought to be somewhere in a federal correctional facility instead of running for re-election. What a crock!

report 10 likes, 3 dislikes   
Posted by RYD on 02/07/2012 at 8:46 PM

This whole discussion at such a fast pace is ridiculous. Hendrix and Richardson are right on about this. Stodola and Co. have ignored this issue until it involved their precipus Main Street. I can't believe how transparent they are.

report 9 likes, 1 dislike   
Posted by Forcefield on 02/07/2012 at 9:05 PM

Every time a convenience store gets a beer permit it becomes another business that is off limits for employing youth from the community. Can't the city directors see that the crime problems are the result of fewer traditional job opportunities for teens? Is there any other business that can avoid compliance with federal law regarding access and service to the disabled by posting a sign that states in effect "we'll gladly pump your gas if you need help and are disabled unless there is only one person on duty at this location" and then never has more than one person on duty in the business? Take a long look at the youth unemployment statistics around the state over the last three decades since gas stations started selling beer and in wet counties versus dry (where there are no restrictions on jobs for teens).

report 4 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by MysteryShopper on 02/07/2012 at 10:56 PM

well, I wonder if this was a sex addiction treatment center close to a school if people would feel like it should be rammed down someone's throat...I think it is legitimate to force developers to answers questions about their properties before it is approved not after the fact...This isn't just about the VA...Look at the Easter Seals attempt to transfer their lease to a developer...That transfer would have resulted in a 9 acre property being developed which is not subject to city zoning or city taxes in the middle of town..That was stopped partially by citizen activist and outcry of the neighbors...Why shouldn't citizens have a say in what is appropriate (they directors can still vote to approve if they think is right) but why should "Kum & Go" Convenience stores corporate voice be louder than my voice as a citizen...Why should a developer be able to simply go get a permit without any hearing for their lastest and great project even if it makes no sense or will increase traffic etc...This town has been run by developers for to long...time the citizens took back some of their power....

report 2 likes, 2 dislikes   
Posted by joanimal on 02/08/2012 at 3:21 AM

joanimal, now you are trying to mess with the "established order of things". You are not to question the motives of your leaders as they certainly would only have your best interests in mind. And if you believe all of this drivel, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you!

And Brummett had an issue with the liquor store issue as he feels the state ABC Board feels it has the sole right of approving where they are and if the city wants to get into a state vs city tug-a-war, the imperial leaders might find their alcohol license at the Country Clubs might be in jeopardy. Be very aware of how much power unpaid state and city boards have when they get really pissed off.

report 4 likes, 1 dislike   
Posted by couldn't be better on 02/08/2012 at 5:53 AM

Yesterday's DemGaz editorialized AND contradicted itself in the same paragraph.

Loosely rephrased - get gov't beureaucrats off our back by installing gov't beureaucrats another layer of hoop jumping permit requirements.

Do a master plan zoning for the whole city that is well thought out and logical AND STICK TO IT!

Did the DemGaz cut back on proofreaders (logic,consistantcy readers) with their last cut of comics and columnists?

report 6 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by Citizen1 on 02/08/2012 at 6:37 AM

Hey Mayor!

If you wish Main Street to develope, put your energy into breaking up the log jam of blight between Bennetts and the Rep.

That couple blocks of empty, idle, deteriorating till bulldozed historic buildings is killing any expansion of the successful River Market.

Developement momentum is snuffed out by the inability to leap frog that Dead Zone.

Years ago Memphis had that problem of devlopers sitting around occupying their Main Street trying to wait till everything around them developed and drove up their values.

A little clue to the clueless, a big bottleneck of idle is its own stall to improvement.

report 8 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by Citizen1 on 02/08/2012 at 6:50 AM

To those who oppose this center for Veterans---next time you need us, don't call. Handle it yourselves.

report 8 likes, 4 dislikes   
Posted by SHolmes on 02/08/2012 at 6:57 AM

I guess the next suggestions by the citizens of Little Rock will be: put the Vet Centers in Iraq, Vietnam & etc. Come on citizens, I live in WLR and would accept the Vet Center in my neighborhood.

ZEELARRY

report 5 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by ZEELARRY on 02/08/2012 at 8:35 AM

I disagree with putting this center across the street from a liquor store that has crime and bad elements all around it. You can't even go to that store without being harassed. It doesn't seem like a good idea nor well thought out. This part of downtown has a hard enough time coming back up why make it worse and yes this will make it worse. This is not good for the area and this area has only just started to improve a little bit. I can't help but think there are much better and safer locations to service our Vets which do deserve the best. Race has no bearing on my opinion or others living in the neighborhood. If it did we wouldn't even be downtown. This is another setback for downtown.

report 1 like, 7 dislikes   
Posted by louisiana st resident on 02/08/2012 at 10:21 AM

I disagree with putting this center in a country that has crime and bad elements. Our honored vets should not have to associate with the perfidious electorate.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   
Posted by CyberBiker on 02/08/2012 at 12:33 PM
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-11 of 11

Add a comment

More by Author

Event Calendar

« »

May

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31  

Blogroll

Slideshows

 

© 2012 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation