COM 0067.004 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

suggests that smaller is betterz. In any case, the reason why the operators have requested an increase is NOT that they will be more effective; but that it is only way that they can meet the overhead expenses. Ms. McIntosh in effect admits as much, when she said in her letter to the Commission, "It is impossible to operate this home with this limited (i.e., five) number of occupants." No reason was given as to why it would be impossible. It is also interesting to note that in the same letter, she wants eight to be the LOWER number, not the maximum. The reason may be that it is in the Department of Health's (or other funders) best interest to increase the number of clients being served in a single facility since this would allow limited funds to be more efficiently used. Increasing the size of a "family" means that overhead costs (which form part of the per-client allocation and include such items as rent, mortgage service, staff costs, administrative expenses, and other indirect costs, etc.) can be reduced when compazed with a smaller set of "families" having to reside in more locations. I have to wonder if local neighborhoods should suffer due to unwise expenditure commitments by operators. 4. The son-of-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) argument. The Director seems to believe that the limit of five unrelated persons is so onerous that it would be seen by the courts as an "unreasonable" restriction on the rights of the handicapped to live in residential neighborhoods. The fear here is that an operator, acting for a disabled person or persons, will file suit against the county. The argument would have force if it could be shown that a) there is no procedure for increasing the limit or b) if there is a procedure, its invocation inevitably results in denial. Neither aspect is true: an operator may apply for a special use permit to allow an increase to ANY number of clients and, I suspect, that when this has occurred it has more often than not been approved. Cleazly, the present process works. To grate the teeth of an old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" If you increase the number to eight, how long will it be before some operator files a request to increase the number to 10, 12, 14, or some even greater number arguing that eight is "onerous?" As a hazbinger of things to come, an operator has already threatened a suit against a Homeowners' Association if the owners persist in opposing the sitting of a drug treatment group home in their development. In fact that threat was made at the very first meeting of the operator and the owners. 5. That such an increase is necessary to provide safe and reasonable housing for the mentally ill and disabled. Most of the testimony supporting the change at the Commission meetings came from advocates for the mentally ill and disabled. All of this testimony is beside the point. Present regulations provide for a waiver for such operations. The proposed bill would only affect one segment of the rehabilitation community: those focused on rehabilitating drug users. In other words, the bill flies under deceptive colors and for that reason alone it represents a case of legislation enacted to benefit one operator, though its effects may be far-reaching. Our recommendation is simple: operators who wish to place more than five unrelated residents in a house should use the process now available to them. This would allow neighborhood residents to have their views respected and integrated into the decision making process on a case-by-case basis. Nobody is asking for a veto power, only to not be stereotyped as some wild-eyed people pushing the disabled back into the snake pits. While we might like the definition of a family to be restricted to people related by blood, marriage, adoption or "hanai," we recognize that the "horse left the bam a long time ago." However, we can ask that the local government prevent the neighborhoods from becoming stables with consequent negative effects on the quality of life. Let me be cleaz: we want to work with the Council, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Department to support operators who are truly interested in client improvement and who forgo aggressive autonomy as a sitting strategy while at :Nagy, M.P., Fisher, G.A., and Tessler, R.C. (1988) Effects of facility characteristics on the social adjustment of mentally ill residents ofboard-and-caze homes. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 39(12), 1281-1286.