A decision on the fate of LGBT-oriented sober living space Living with Pride is expected within the next month.
Representatives presented their case at a contentious hearing before Chicago's Zoning Board of Appeals Sept. 18. The decision will be the culmination of a long process for the embattled house, which opened this spring and was shortly thereafter determined by zoning administrator Patricia Scudiero to be improperly zoned.
Living with Pride was brought to the attention of Scudiero following complaints by neighbors that were publicized in an April 26 "What's Your Problem?" column in the Chicago Tribune.
Scudiero's decision that Living with Pride needed to apply for a special-use permit was appealed at last week's hearing. At issue is whether Living with Pride is a "community family home," as its supporters claim—and therefore zoned correctly—or a "transitional home," or halfway house, which neighbors allege it to be.
Scudiero, in a May decision, found that the house was indeed "transitional," and would need to be re-zoned as such in order for it to stay in the neighborhood—a move that some community members, and 47th Ward Alderman Gene Schulter, have already said that they would oppose.
Since such opposition makes it unlikely that a permit to re-zone would be successful, the zoning board's decision may be the final word on whether Living with Pride will stay in its North Center neighborhood.
Residents living in a "community family home" are expected to do so indefinitely or permanently, said Dr. Claudia Mosier, the founder and director of Living with Pride, in testimony before the board. Indeed, she argued, the ability to depend on a stable living situation is critical to the recovery of many of LWP's clients. She argued that all residents of LWP should be considered "disabled" with conditions ranging from chemical dependency to mood and personality disorders.
Mosier's claims were supported by testimony from Dr. Kelly DuCheny, a clinical psychologist from Howard Brown Health Services. DuCheny told the board that there are few sober spaces tailored specifically to the needs of LGBT people. "Abrupt changes," she said, "do not cement recovery. Finding [ the ] kind of support [ provided by Living with Pride ] is going to be pivotal in maintaining recovery and sobriety and cementing life-long changes."
Tim Barton, who represented the Department of Zoning and Land Use Planning in the hearing, took issue with Mosier and DuCheny's concepts of disability. Barton said that while his department considers a community family home to be "a location where people with permanent disabilities are housed permanently," the sorts of disabilities evinced by Mosier's clientele are more often "treated in the context of a transitional residence."
Opponents of Living with Pride pointed to old publications that refer repeatedly to the house as "transitional" or a "halfway house"—terminology that Mosier said was used before she fulled appreciated the legal ramifications of the terms. "I've had to apologize for this more than I've had to apologize for worse things I've done in my life," she said.
Mosier compared her previous use of the disputed terminology to the way that concepts of sanity and insanity vary across professions: though insanity is a legally recognized definition, she said, it has no corollary in the field of psychology.
"If she's so well-qualified," asked neighbor Dara Salk, "how did she not know … that that was not legal?" Salk and other opponents of the house—including Ald. Schulter, who testified against it—presented the board with a number of documents that included "21 places," they said, where Mosier referred to Living with Pride as a "halfway house."
Susan Malone, who also testified against Living with Pride, said that nobody in the neighborhood objected to the fact of the house itself, and said that Mosier should have applied for a special-use permit rather than pursue an appeal—despite neighbors' earlier indication that they would oppose such a permit.
"This is a properly determined transitional residence. No one in my community is opposed to the house being anywhere," Malone said, stressing that it was just a matter of "doing it in the proper manner, proper time, proper location."
Proceedings also focused on the question of whether Living with Pride provided counseling to its members and held 12-step meetings, which opponents said would "bring a lot of unwanted traffic to the neighborhood."
Contrary to Mosier's claims, Salk said, "There is counseling going on—whether it's AA or something." Mosier said that does not provide counseling in the house. She also said that while LWP once hosted 12-step meetings, it stopped doing so after neighbors objected.
