rambot
Senior Member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 24,827
- 13,413
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
But if it's not properly zoned for it, why didn't it get shut down because it's not properly zoned?Um, it hasn't been shut down. Yet.
If it is shut down, it will not be because it's "not safe". It will be because the area they are housing the homeless is zoned for business and the city says that it cannot be approved as a conditional use otherwise.
Apologies. You are correct. I read this and miscontrued:To solve this "simple" problem, the church would have had to purchase another facility, something I'm guessing they don't have the finances to do. The city alluded to this in their press release when they said:
Also, there are places in the City where Dad's Place likely could operate a safe homeless shelter that would be consistent with the zoning code. For example, the City also contacted individuals in charge of selling a facility in Bryan that, pending zoning approval, could be used by Dad's Place. This facility is in an area of the City that would permit individuals to sleep in the building.
You should take 5 minutes and read the press release above to understand this issue before you comment further to prevent yourself from spreading any more misinformation.
It does kind of read like the impetus for filing the charges was that they didn't fix safety issues.Ruskey's statement also alleged that there were "numerous State Fire Code violations that the tenant and property owner were made aware of."
"A reasonable amount of time was given for both the tenant and property owner to fix the issues. Due to the safety of all involved the city moved forward with filing charges," the statement also said.
They COULD have filed charges straight up when it was not zoned appropriately but they didn't. Why not?
Agreed.As I mentioned in an earlier post, it would be in the best interest of everyone involved if they would stop with the criminal charges and lawsuits and sat down to work together.
Upvote
0