Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)

Citation: Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Parent Document: Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-03-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4473714/mary-valencia-v-city-of-springfield/ ↗

Full Text

1,920 chars

Milwaukee did not demonstrate that the group home at issue
was “any more likely to generate calls to the police than other
area residents.” Id.
    This case is akin to Oconomowoc. As the district court
found, the Noble home is necessary to fulfill “IAG’s mission
to provide residential services to disabled adults in a commu-
nity-based setting.” This necessity is further highlighted by
the district court’s finding that “group homes are in short sup-
ply.” In fact, “[i]t took several months for IAG to find a home
that would accommodate the needs of its clients.”
    In addition, at this stage in the proceedings, the record
shows that IAG’s CPU request is reasonable. It would plainly
effectuate plaintiffs’ goal of establishing a CILA for Noble
home residents, and would further advance the integration of
disabled individuals into the Springfield community. Moreo-
ver, these benefits likely outweigh the potential costs of im-
plementation. The financial and administrative burden on the
City is negligible. According to the evidence before the Court,
neither police nor emergency services have been called to the
Noble home in the three years since it opened. To the con-
trary, at the City Council hearing on plaintiffs’ CPU request,
an alderman acknowledged that there have been “no issues”
with the home. Further, the district court found that, because
IAG made no requests for City services (such as street signs
or traffic signals), “[i]t would cost the City no money to allow
A.D. and the other residents to remain in the Noble home.”
    Nor is there sufficient evidence of intangible costs to the
neighborhood. Although neighbors of the Noble home raise
various traffic concerns, the City’s own Traffic Engineer did
not object to plaintiffs’ CPU request. Moreover, while the City
also argues that the requested accommodation will have a
20                                                   No. 17-2773

Other Sections in This Document (36)

Full Text