Group homes can’t find a home
by Lori Barrett | May 9, 2008 at 6:57 am
Posted in baltimore politics, drugs
Baltimore City Council is fighting it out with Mayor Dixon over a bill that changes the zoning code for residential drug-treatment facilities and other group homes.
As it stands, any group home with more than four residents requires City Council approval, but Council members tend not to support the homes because they are unpopular with their constituents. The “new” legislation — which City Council has essentially ignored for the past six years — would allow any group home with fewer than nine residents to open in any neighborhood without Council approval.
Why is Mayor Dixon now in favor of the proposal? Well, residents of the group homes are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the legislation is not passed soon, Baltimore could be found in violation of this civil rights law and slapped with a hefty lawsuit.
Says Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke about the bill: “It scares me. I’m very concerned about this. I think it’s poor planning.”
So, this is a classic case of Not In My Backyard. No one actually wants a group home next door to their own, despite the tremendous need for facilities like these in our city. Is it better to keep people who are in need of drug treatment or assisted living on the streets (maybe your own) rather than in recovery in a home around the corner?
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:55 am | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
Sorry but Lori didn't do a post on this so I am leaving it here.
b---give Lori a train ticket to DC so she can see how misguided her desire to see Baltimore's Arena plopped down in another part of town truly is.
Give her a ticket to a Caps game! The Verizon center has revitalized DC's downtown. Restaurants shops and excitement prevail. Our Arena must stay where it is (build parking into the plan and route lite rail to the building) in order to generate a living downtown.
The Meadowlands in NJ and the philly project she points out all do very little to create a community minded building...their just theaters for the nhl and nba and the random big name concert. It failed here before---remember the Cap Centre?
We can take our time and do it right...after all, we don't have hockey team or an NBA franchise knocking down the door demanding it.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:38 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
It's actually rather a shame, given that, when you're talking about the drug-treatment programs, the people who live in these homes are the ones who are probably working hardest to get themselves out of the drug life and back into society. And we push them away and do our best to discourage them.
In the meantime, the other programs wind up all getting tarred with the same brush, so that group homes for the mentally retarded or otherwise disabled persons also wind up unwelcome. In all cases, the house is owned and maintained by the agencies. They're well-kept (landscaping, etc.) because they have a maintenance staff, and there are staff members there on a 24-hour basis. You will never have to call the cops because of a wild party over there. For the most part, you'd never know that a given house is a group home.
The worst thing about most of these houses for the residents in the immediate area is that sometimes they eat up a few extra parking spaces, depending on staff requirements. The worst thing about them for the City Council is that most of them are run by non-profit (or not-for-profit) agencies and so the property comes off the tax rolls.
But in my experience, group homes tend to make pretty good neighbors.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Please log in to reply. | Log in to rate this comment | report this comment
These houses, for the most part, are NOT drug treatment programs. They are not subject to JCHO regulations, and in light of this legislation, they will not be subject to any sort of review. The issue is not whether people want them in their backyards, or access to treatment; the issue is regulation and the big lie in mental health treatment in this town. Specifically substance abuse. Most of these houses are run by people that have little clinical expertise in the area of substance abuse and/or mental health. It's a business...one that often qualifies for tax exemption. Most, if not all do not provide treatment or support services to the clients...they simply provide a bed...at a cost.
The bigger question here is one of regulation, and review. Its very dangerous to allow these group homes to simply set-up shop whereever they want. The greater needs of the clients must be preserved...and that will only happen if these programs are held accountable.