Dr. Jesse J. Lewis, Sr.
The residents of Gate City have a right to be concerned with their safety. It’s very unfortunate that an incident of this magnitude should happen to anyone. It’s unfortunate that so much misinformation is being passed out by people who have a personal interest and people who are mean-spirited. These people are passing out inaccurate information, for whatever reason God only knows.
Several companies have made financial contributions that some people say the residents have never received. There is a group of people who allegedly are working with attorneys to recruit clients and get kick-backs. There are people who do not even live in the housing community who are attempting to receive food, clothing and monetary compensation.
As always, the media is looking for the worst scenario they can dig up. For example, they are interviewing residents in other housing communities asking them if they have smelled gas in the last two years. Of course, they said they smell it every day. These are the same people who have lived in the housing communities for over 30 years and always have derogatory remarks about the community facilities, the administration, etc.
There is no one in the housing community who could have foreseen what happened. If it could have been foreseen, the administration would have moved people before it happened.
A meeting held by the Birmingham District Board of Commissioners is subject to the Open Meeting Act, which states meetings held by the deliberative policy making body to discuss a matter is to be open to the public, including the media. However, a meeting of Housing Authority (HABD) managers with residents is not subject to the Open Meeting Act. The recent meeting held at Marks Village was not a public hearing. Managers wanted to talk with residents and have residents talk with managers regarding site matters.
One hundred ninety-five (195) residents signed in for this meeting. Some expressed the misconception that they would receive payments or Section 8 vouchers, neither of which was accurate. A few disgruntled residents left. More than 100 people remained for most of the nearly two hour meeting.
These meetings are for announcements to the residents and are not public meetings. The media was not permitted in the meeting. The media shows interest only when it is perceived that the meeting enhances the story. The same was true when HABD met with residents to discuss a railroad proposal with its residents. Since the issue is no longer dominant in the media, monthly meetings have been held without media interest.
Residents are entitled to the dignity and respect of personal privacy. Individuals who live in public housing have the same rights to personal privacy in their home and organizational environments as other citizens. It appears, that there is an approach to having a double standard for those who live in public housing. There is nothing to hide, but there are rights to protect. As advocates for those who live in public housing, HABD will restrain these intrusions to personal liberty.
Some media personnel were heard to say, this is a public housing authority meeting and I am coming in. This approach is an indignation to personal liberty that ought to be constitutionally available to the citizens who live in public housing. The same media operatives, if confronted with a similar situation in their residences would likely express outrage, particularly if it included some governmental entity.
