Charity at Home

The recent decision by the Cedar Grove Civic Association to disapprove of the sale of a private residence to a group seeking to house mentally-retarded adults is shameful. That the civic association meets in a church hall is chillingly ironic. This is the third time in recent memory that the Cedar Grove Civic Association has gone up in arms, virulently opposing measures to bring changes to their neighborhood. The resulting image portrays a civic association less interested civil activism than social castigation.

Let’s put aside the issue of treating mentally retarded adults fairly. I’m sure the majority of people at the civic association meeting had no intention to stigmatize people who especially deserve a safe place to live. The hackneyed and unhelpful NIMBY reaction to the issue of a group home is clearly a sign of the neighborhood’s anger.

What are these members of Cedar Grove Civic Association so angry about? Our houses are worth more than ever before, our neighborhood is safe and yet there is real outrage that disabled people should want to live in this environment. The opponents of the house sale use fear of the unknown, fear of falling property values, fear of the mentally disabled to stoke their neighbors’ ire. I live in Dorchester because I believe there is no substitute for the diversity and strength of community here. There is an ugly element of intolerance for anything or anyone that goes beyond the norm in the civic association’s rejection of Bay Cove’s bid to purchase the Chelmsford Street House. By definition the mentally disabled are not in the norm and they deserve our respect more than our disdain.

Finally I know that this statement will antagonize the already intolerant. There will always be room for fear and loathing in our hearts, it is much harder and more worthwhile for this community if we act with kindness and love for those who are disadvantaged. I hope that Cedar Grove Civic Association will look to negotiate with Bay Cove to find a good home for our deserving neighbors.

Comments

[eeka]

Heya! Found you on Universal Hub. Great post!

Just a little pointer...It's preferable to use terms such as "individuals with mental retardation" rather than "the mentally retarded" or "the mentally disabled" or "mentally retarded adults" so that you're discussing the people first and foremost, rather than referring to them as their disabilities. More here: http://www.apastyle.org/disabilities.html

I happen to work for said agency, though not in that division, and I've heard that the sale really can't be opposed, because, legally, a staffed residence isn't any different from me owning or renting a home and hiring people to help me with my personal care. The individuals served by these residences pay rent and board and for their staff support out of their SSI and DMR funding.

Also, just an interesting related point...there are certain neighborhoods in Dorchester where there can't be any more DMR programs, because the area is too saturated. Sounds discriminatory at first, but the policy is actually that if a particular neighborhood has too high of a concentration of group homes, then the group homes are no longer in the community, but rather are in an area full of group homes. There actually is a street in Brighton where there used to be 22 staffed apartments all on one street -- an agency owned all of the apartments on this one-block street. They had to have about half of the individuals move, because the state saw this as a community made entirely of people with disabilities, and so this meant these individuals were essentially segregated, and so they weren't being served in the community.

[Ron Newman]

What were the other two proposals that the association opposed?