Archive: Master of Pirates
Mike Spasoff is a tireless servant to this community -- at least for a few months out of the year -- and that's good enough for me. It's also more than good enough for the 600 trick-or-treaters he delights and terrifies with the elaborate, Disney-rivaling, pirate-themed yard display at his house on San Fernando Mission Boulevard (near Shoshone). When I was a kid, I used to always wish someone in the neighborhood would do something beyond carving a pumpkin. Fortunately, kids in Mike's neighborhood will never have to cope with that same unfulfilled sense of longing that I always had. What makes you want to invest the time, money, and resources into such an elaborate production? I can remember the magic of walking the streets of our neighborhood each Halloween and the excitement of finding a house that did something more than just a jack-o-lantern or a cardboard skeleton. My parents and I always made a special effort to do something extra but it wasn't until we moved to
I in partly agree but at the same time I don't. It is good that they control the crime etc, but where are these people going to go? You might as well just tell them, "look, we admire that you are trying to sober up, just don't do it in my neighborhood." How sad. It is just like the homelessness problem in our city, no one wants to see a homeless person in their neighborhood but yet what are we doing to help. These are people with real problems and should have a place to sleep. They are not second class citizens. It hits home because I have a relative that went through this and thank goodness he is now recovered and well. People deserve second chances. No one wants their neighborhood to go to crap but at the same time find a solution don't just sweep it under the rug.
ReplyDeleteLet me correct some of the errors in the post above. First, the new ordinance still has to go through a final draft and another vote of the City Council. Second, it does not affect group homes of any kind that house six or less residents. Third, licsened facilities of more than six will still be allowed in low density housing areas, but they will have to meet some modest "perfomance standards" which provide for adequate parking and limit the number of residents to two to a bedroom. What will not be allowed are unlicsened "Sober Living" homes of seven or more that are run like boarding homes. Many of these are in fact just boarding houses, and are "sober living" facilities in name only.
ReplyDeleteSober-living rules poorly drafted
ReplyDeleteRe "New regulations on sober-living homesfair to residents, operators" (Editorial, June3):
The Los Angeles City Council did not adopt "rules for sober-living homes." One part of the proposal delineates standards for licensed treatment centers, often mischaracterized as sober living. The other part defines every single-family home in L.A. as a "boarding house," if there is more than one lease or rental agreement. Once a second rental agreement is established, homes will be deemed a boarding house. All of them. Students, seniors, roommates and sober-living homes will be banished. No opponents complained about property rights. However, all citizens will complain about privacy rights when officials demand to see private rental contracts.
The drafters lost focus. The complaint is poorly operated homes. Offering accreditation or certification to well-run sober living homes would give peace of mind to us all.
PAUL DUMONT
So if you have a boarder who rents a room from you, will they be affected?
ReplyDeleteOne lease per home. So, as City Planning explained a boarding house with 70 people would still be legal under this proposed law if all 70 were on the same lease. This is not a solution to sober living homes that are bad neighbors. Certification for good homes and nuisance abatement for any problem properties makes sense. The current version sweeps with so broad a brush that it caught up several powerful, unanticipated opponents that will help defeat it in court should it pass as written. Sadly, it will not affect problem properties - only good ones.
ReplyDeletePaul Dumont
ORDINANCE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE HOMELESSNESS
ReplyDeleteIf enforced, the ordinance would severely restrict renters from sharing living arrangements:
• Because the ordinance forbids more than one rental agreement in any home or apartment, an agreement between friends or families to live together to share the costs of housing, even if oral and informal, would make such housing arrangements illegal in single family zones and would create hurdles for this housing as a “boarding or rooming house” in all other zones.
• As many as 49,000 renters living in poverty in the City share living arrangements.
• An additional 9,500 people living in poverty rent a room in a home, often from other renters.
• People in poverty sharing living arrangements are already at significant risk of homelessness. The practice of “doubling up” would be illegal in many parts of the City, potentially leaving thousands of people no choice but the streets or shelters.
Paul Dumont, quoting the Corporation for Supportive Housing - June 2011