Although the board last month made public its support for the counseling agency, it maintains that the city was in error when it granted Ozone House zoning compliance. The board claims that the agency's operations are not permitted under the zoning approval given to the Chi Psi fraternity headquarters that used to occupy the 92-year-old historic home. Because Ozone House directors indeed followed the correct protocol for approval, city officials should permit Ozone House to remain untouched at its current location where it can best serve the city's homeless and runaway teen population.
Even before its move from a house on North Main Street into the $405,000 property this past spring, the service faced opposition from the Oxbridge Neighborhood Association. The group of area residents expressed concern about the potential for parking problems and an increased density of developments, but neither problem has materialized. Their opposition likely stems from unfounded fears of crime and violence and from a "not-in-my-backyard" disposition. But residents' and city officials' objections to allowing Ozone House to remain at its new site fail to consider the tremendous benefit the agency offers the surrounding community - and how its new location augments its ability to offer that service.
Established 28 years ago, the agency has succeeded in sheltering homeless and runaway youth. As Ann Arbor's homeless population dwarfs that of cities of comparable size, Ozone House directors' decision to seek larger facilities was duly warranted. Their choice of a location adjacent to the University campus - where the bulk of the homeless population dwells - proves sensible since it enables the agency to better reach the population it exists to serve. Tucked next to fraternity row, its proximity to the campus also enables Ozone House to draw on the University's large number of student volunteers, providing the agency with a more-than-adequate supply of workers to provide children with crisis-line counseling, mentorship and 24-hour supervision.
Though the zoning board voted on Jan. 28 not to reconsider Ozone House's zoning issue, last week's lawsuit has placed the topic back on the table. In resolving the issue, city officials should allow the agency to remain at its new site unscathed. By preserving Ozone House's operations, city officials would do more to fulfill their fundamental goal - to advocate the public welfare - than they would by standing by the dusted pages of city ordinances.