Sunday’s Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper ran an article headlined Rehab facility near Fernan Elementary criticized. Given the Press appears to lack either the will or the skill to do enterprise investigative news reporting, OpenCdA asks “Why now?” Why is the Press suddenly interested in Port of Hope, Inc. ?The information in the article is incomplete, but we will assume that what is there is accurate.
Significantly absent from the article is a clear statement that the “offenders for felony crimes” are still under state supervision. If they are, then are they on parole or probation? If they are on parole, then Idaho Code §20-234 required the Idaho Department of Correction to notify both the Kootenai County Sheriff and the Kootenai County Prosecuting Attorney of a prospective parolee’s residence address. In turn, that same law requires the Sheriff to notify both the Coeur d’Alene Police Department and other pertinent agencies of the offenders’ residence address. This statutory requirement applies only if a Port of Hope resident is on parole.
If that requirement for notification existed and if the Sheriff delivered it to the Coeur d’Alene Police Department as required, then City planner Sean Holm’s statement that the City was caught off guard is simply wrong. While Holm may not have known how long Port of Hope has been operating against code, the City most certainly did if the statutory requirement for pre-release notification existed and was fulfilled. However, if the City has not been getting the statutorily required notifications of parolee residences, then the Chief of Police ought to be screaming at the top of his lungs at the Sheriff. It’s a police officer safety issue. If the Sheriff hasn’t been getting the notifications from the Idaho Department of Correction, then the Sheriff and Prosecutor ought to complain not to IDOC but to our Governor.
Port of Hope is not completely blame-free, however. Again according to the skewspaper article, Port of Hope assumed the City knew that it had begun housing felons. Port of Hope should be required to explain in detail why it made that assumption. Although it was established in a C-17 zone which allowed it to operate a healthcare/hospital or rehabilitative facility without further permission (Ord. §17.05.500), Port of Hope knew or should have known that it would require a special use permit to operate a criminal transitional facility (Ord. §17.05.520). If it knew and chose to ignore the requirement until now, then that has the same effect and should have the same punishment as filing an initial application with knowingly false information.
The City should also demand exactly how the Port of Hope defines “24-hour a day supervision” as it used that term in the article. The City should also want to know if any of Port of Hope’s “residents” actually reside outside the walls of its business address. That term, “supervision”, has a different meaning in the world of corrections than in common usage.
And why did School District 271 suddenly take an interest in the residence location of felons? It wasn’t interested in 2004 when the Idaho Department of Correction admitted that four convicted felons (two on probation and two on parole) were living together in a single-family residence near schools. The City was well aware of that but chose to ignore its own ordinances, fearing it would be sued by the felons, some of whom were later re-arrested for participating in a burglary ring while living under IDOC “supervision.”
The School District wasn’t interested enough to alert parents to the presence of an exceedingly large accumulation of registered sex offenders living in a small geographic area near schools in the historic heart of town.
If the skewspaper article is to be believed, Port of Hope may have been operating far more lawfully and maybe even more productively than most of the illegal IDOC-supported rooming houses in residential zones in the community. While we agree that Port of Hope should be brought into compliance, we believe the far greater problem is the knowing and willful endangerment of residential communities by Coeur d’Alene City officials who, perhaps to court the favor of certain developers, selectively ignore the ordinances and allows the creation of illegal boarding houses occupied by convicted felons under state “supervision”.
The social issue of “three-quarter housing” is going on elsewhere as well as right here in Coeur d’Alene. It is summarized in this report titled A Home of Their Own.
The Coeur d’Alene Press article on Sunday omitted a number of very important facts, not the least of which is that the contract sought by Port of Hope is not with the State of Idaho but the Federal Bureau of Prisons. That came out in the P&Z hearing tonight. Based on the responses of the applicants, I’m far more concerned about the illegal IDOC boarding houses than Port of Hope.
Comment by Bill — July 9, 2013 @ 8:50 pm
The Press failed to undertake a thorough investigation? The School District wasn’t interested and the City failed to enforce its ordinances? Say it ain’t so Joe!
Comment by up river — July 10, 2013 @ 2:23 pm
I attended the hearing. I referenced IC 18-239 which prohibits sex offenders from residing 500 feet from a school. It seems that this facility might not be considered a residence, thus the prohibition might not be applicable. Warren Wilson will request a clarification from the Idaho Attorney General.
The staff report included the usual pertinent information but contained no information regarding this federal program which would have informed not only the Commissioners but also any citizen. Also, comments included from water, sewer, streets, fire but nothing from police. Six pages of photos of the area were included, however.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — July 11, 2013 @ 7:51 am
Susie,
You’re correct. And as the applicants testified under oath at the P&Z hearing, the federal Bureau of Prisons’ auditors made a physical measurement between Port of Hope and Fernan Elementary School to get the exact distance and ensure Port of Hope was complying.
Both the City and the Press really let the citizens down by failing to elaborate on the federal supervision over Port of Hope because of its contract establishing it as a Residential Reentry Center. I’m preparing an OpenCdA post to try and provide some of the information that the Press (once again) failed to provide. In hindsight, it would have been a good idea for the Port of Hope applicant to explain in overview the RRC program. I suspect PoH assumed officials at Coeur d’Alene City Hall know more than they really do know.
Frankly, somebody needs to (figuratively) slap the Police Department’s Command Staff upside the head for their consistently declining to provide thoughtful, prepared input to P&Z. It is entirely possible that if the Police Department’s Command Staff had done its administrative job and presented relevant material at the P&Z hearing on Tuesday, a continuation of that hearing until next month might not have been necessary. Hopefully our City’s laziness or worse resulting in the delay will not jeopardize Port of Hope’s chances of successfully getting its RRC contract renewed.
Comment by Bill — July 11, 2013 @ 8:15 am