Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

After publishing my article on Englewood’s civil rights violations, I was sent the following letter.

Follow up:

Greetings...
It seems you are under the impression that Mrs. Bartnick has been abused in the name of racism. This is not the case. In fact the allegations of racism and the mention of race are a debating point meant to draw attention from the basic problem of an appropriate land use question. Several Neighbors of the Bartnicks are of the opinion that unrestricted boarding houses are a non-compatible use in high density Single Family zoning districts.
We brought this to the attention of city council, who agreed with our position and corrected a zoning code error to conform with that opinion. The Bartnicks were given time to come into compliance with the requirements for the useage according to long standing best municiple practices. They refused to do so, concentrating instead on filing specious and vicious lawsuits.
We neighbors are not concerned with race, creed, or gender in any way, we seek to limit the traffic, parking, and transient population, from impacting the security and safety of our neighborhood. While she claims currently to have only seminary students on leases, her original advertisements were for month-to-month, cash, no lease occupants.
She acted in knowing violation of the law and with absolute disregard for the wishes and legitimate concerns of the neighborhood. There are those of us who minister to Latin America, who have worked in Asia, and those of us who have worked for migrant's rights. It is incorrect to paint this as a racial issue and insulting to those of us maligned by those statements.

This letter to me was anonymously signed “neighborsonpearl.” It lends credence to Bartnick’s tale of repetitive anonymous threats from unknown sources. Being terrorized by these people seems corroborated.

There sure is a lot of fancy legal speech going on in this letter like, “unrestricted boarding houses” “non-compatible use in high density single family zoning districts” and “Council corrected a zoning code error to conform with that opinion.” I especially enjoyed absorbing their knowledge of “usage according to long-standing best municipal practices” although in all their mighty knowledge, they misspelled two words in the sentence and maligned the facts.

What I am still confused about is the blatant targeting of “Mrs. Bartnick” and “She” “she” “she”… as if she is the only one they wish to move out of their neighborhood.

What came first, their criminal prosecution of her, (January 2008) which the judge dismissed as frivolous, or the Bartnick’s request for the Supreme Court to review Englewood's newest Boarding House Ordinance (October 2008)which these neighbors cast as "filing specious and vicious lawsuits"?

Why do they say this boarding house was unrestricted when there were clear rules from 1999 code regarding small group homes and boarding houses? I do not see where the City ever cited the Bartnicks with non-compliance of the code governing them. It wasn't until Englewood drew up a criminal bill of attainder against this innocent couple housing innocent seminarians, that they defrauded their City into believing the newest prosecutions are just prosecutions.

Why do these neighbors say they only sought to “limit traffic, parking and transient populations from impacting the security and safety of our neighborhood,” when City Council has already determined that the South Korean did not own a car, and at the time these neighbors were making a stink of themselves at the City, there was plenty of available parking?

I see from the minutes of City Council and Planning and Zoning meetings last summer, that Ann and Miguel Drake complained that Boarding houses should be required to pave their driveways, and at the next meeting complained that the Bartnicks were rushing to pour their driveway. Were they really saying, "hurry up and get this bit enacted so that we can cite them for lacking a driveway!"

Neighbor professor Greg Pickett complained at that same zoning meeting that his Norman Rockwell Neighborhood was being infiltrated, and especially complained about the foot traffic increase since the South Korean moved in.

An unsuspecting new person, moving into the neighborhood stated how delighted she was to have such friendly neighbors (including the Bartnicks) "because good neighbors are worth more than the house itself." Isn’t that ironic?

It would be very interesting for me to see whether these neighbors actually do “minister” to Latinos in their countries, or whether they just own a time share in Mexico.

Hate is not a family value, Mr Noffsinger, Ms. Noffsinger, Mr. Drake, Mrs. Drake and Mr. Pickett. How do you warrant your hateful antics in your Normal Rockwell "single-family zoned" neighborhood?