and Keep Out!

When we announced to friends in Montreal that we were moving to Delaware, one response we got was along the lines of "Delaware? Just wait until you wake up one morning wanting an brioche and espresso and discover there's none to be had...you'll be coming back".

In Delaware.  We call this the "ca-feh".

Luckily, The Coffee Place opened pretty much the same week we moved in to our new home (they must have known we were coming), so we've been more or less set on coffee and croissants (no brioche).

What has shocked me since moving is the isolationist, and often just plain mean, mentality I've encountered here.  I'm not sure if this is something that has increased since I last lived in the US, if I'm only noticing it now because I've been away, or if its just more intense in this area than elsewhere. 

To be clear, I'm not talking about a liberal-conservative, left-right divide here.  I'm talking about a "keep off my lawn mentality" that spans all economic classes and political convictions.  Its a me-first mentality.  Its a mentality that lacks compassion for anyone different or "outside".  It's the mentality that makes people go so far as to key each other's cars, just because someone parked in "their" spot or start sentences with "I'm not racist, but...", or "I shouldn't be saying this, but...", or "These people...".

This week we went to the local city council meeting to check it out.  We arrived a bit late and were surprised to find the room packed.  The issue on the table was the establishment of a group home for recovering addicts.

Of course, this would give most people pause- you come home, and a vigilant person on your street has posted a flier on your door informing you that a group home is opening nearby, near where there is a school, and children walk to school, etc.  You call the city, which informs you that there is a public meeting that night (as there is every week- why don't you come!), and off you go.

However, as the city council pointed out at the meeting, fortunately or unfortunately, local government has no say in this particular matter because under Federal non-discrimination laws recovering addicts have the same right to chose where they want to live as other free people.  By definition, recovering addicts are actively trying to deal with their addiction and re-enter society, which is near impossible if you are stigmatized and shunned every step of the way.  Hence, laws to ensure they can freely find housing and jobs, without which they'd probably fall back into addiction.

The city council (having only just learned about the issue themselves) invited the leader of the half-way house to the meeting to present about its intended purpose and then gave the citizens a chance to voice their concerns.  The goal of course being a productive exchange of ideas in a controlled environment. 

The founder of the house presented.  He was well spoken and basically outlined how recovering addicts who are placed in communal housing are more likely to stay off drugs and find a well paying job compared to people who are hospitalized and "recover" away from society.  Communal houses are also cheaper to run than the in-patient model.  One of the city counselors mentioned he had called around to local real-estate agents to find out the impact on local property values- and they had said they didn't know or that there isn't any impact (which is essentially the findings of this paper when prices are viewed over the long term).

And then there was a line of people who got up to voice their opposition.  First up was a nurse who worked with recovering addicts.  She praised the founder of the half-way house for doing what he was doing, but then enjoined him to do it somewhere else, anywhere else, just not next door to her.

Then there was a string of people whose testimony remarked on how their neighborhood was getting a reputation for drugs and then went on to say that they couldn't have a half-way house because it was going to attract people doing drugs.  Some went so far to acknowledge the existing drug problem before  envisioning a world where the existence of a half-way house was going to cause their street to be suddenly littered with used needles and syringes, children falling on them right and left.

Two former addicts got up to testify how group homes had helped them while some in the crowd muttered and made sounds of discomfort and disbelief. 

The NIMBY attitude is nothing new and completely understandable.

What I found shocking was the that members of the community then started complaining about the Federal government meddling in their lives with these anti-discrimination laws, and accusing the local city council of being useless if they couldn't stand up to and fight the government for them.

Now, I'm not too crazy about the fact that my neighbors keep a "handgun" that looks like a super soaker, but it seems there are some federal laws that permit them to do that.  And I'm pretty sure most of the people at the meeting would have stood up to defend with equal vehemence my neighbors' right to do a variety of thing on their own property.  I've actually come to just expect that everyone I meet around here has the idea that every property owner is the "king of his own castle" and what goes on within those bounds shouldn't be limited or interfered with by government.



http://gordonspecialtyarms.com/?page_id=59

While there were many visions of a future with the young men of the half-way house grabbing young girls off the street, engaging in petty theft, and scattering needles willy-nilly for children to trip on, there were no specific concerns voiced about the fact that some of these young men might legally own a gun.

We chose to live in a neighborhood without a homeowner's association because its the very bizarre price we have to pay if we want to have a clothes line and a compost pile (although of course, this is still only a "privilege" afforded to us by current zoning codes).  The tradeoff is that our neighbors can do pretty much whatever they want to do as well.

So I was a bit taken a back to suddenly hear people arguing that the federal government has overstepped their bounds by ensuring that a property owner can rent to whoever they choose.

What is more basic than the right to live where you want to live without discrimination, knowing that you aren't blacklisted or judged every time you leave your house and walk down the street?

The section of the meeting dealing with this issue eventually concluded and 90% of the room bee-lined out the door rather than stay to find out what was happening elsewhere in town.  The next issue up was about a neighborhood that dissolved their homeowners' association, because the majority of residents wouldn't pay the fee, but are now unhappy that they no longer have private parking spots in front of their houses (since for the city to maintain the streets, all street parking must then belong to all tax payers). 

The overall effect of the meeting was a self-centered view of what constitutes "rights".  So long as it doesn't bother me, and I don't have to pay for it, its a right.
___

Full disclosure:  We used to live in an apartment building next to a group home.  One of the residents helped us make a solar oven and we exchanged recipes.  I've had worse neighbors.