Packed house debates rehab regulation

June Casagrande

They knew the law was complicated, but they didn’t know how

complicated.

After a detailed and well-attended study session on laws governing

residential drug-treatment facilities, the City Council decided

Tuesday that the best prescription was another study session.

“We need to get a better understanding of state laws and our local

zoning ordinances, too,” Mayor Tod Ridgeway said near the end of a

study session, which focused primarily on federal law.

The City Council heard the detailed legal analysis before a nearly

full chamber of community members. About half were peninsula

residents who wanted the council to crack down on drug rehabs, and

most of the rest were community members who support the facilities.

The Rev. George Crisp of Christ by the Sea Church on the peninsula

testified that a number of the residents of a nearby group recovery

home have taken part in the church and proven themselves to be assets

to the community.

One neighbor of Narconon on the peninsula reported that she had

twice been approached by “falling-down drunks” who asked her where

the recovery home was.

Peninsula resident John Miller suggested that the city confine the

homes to the hospital area.

“They bring down our property values,” Miller said.

Council members have yet to let on whether they’re inclined to

regulate the unknown number of recovery homes in the city. First,

they want to know what power they have.

In some cases, federal and state laws restrict a city from some

regulation of group homes such as requiring use permits or business

licenses. Laws define recovering people as disabled and forbid

housing discrimination against disabled people living in a group that

meets the legal definition of a family-type living arrangement.

However, there may be a gap between state and federal laws that

makes it possible to restrict larger group homes: State laws restrict

the definition of a family living arrangement to six or fewer people.

It’s possible, attorney Jeff Goldfarb said, that the city might

apply zoning or permit restrictions to larger recovery homes, such as

Narconon.

After the long and surprisingly civil discussion, the council

agreed to have a study session at its next meeting, on Feb. 24, to

examine the law further. But to expedite the matter, it also plans to

bring the matter to the regular council meeting for action that

night.