Thread: Local Resistance to "Sober-Living Homes" GROWING

I can't imagine a worse case nightmare scenario than to wake up one morning and discover that the house next door has been turned into a high priced flop house for drunks and drug addicts! They are turning up in very upscale, waterfront properties in Newport Beach! It's unimaginable! CA has "no smoking" laws all over the state for apt. renters...and yet a person who owns a multi-million dollar home is subjected to 20 drug addicts living next door! We are losing our freedoms and our inalienable rights! CA is doomed!


Local resistance to sober-living homes growing
By Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 06/22/2008 11:18:32 PM PDT


A year ago, Tamir Dayan sank his life savings into building a 21-foot-ceiling dream home in which to raise his two little girls.

Then up to 20 recovering drug addicts and alcoholics moved into the house next door.

"They moved in; it's a nightmare," said Dayan, 45, of Tarzana. "Saturday morning you can't go outside because of the cigarette smoke. And foul language: `F--- you, f--- you, f--- you.' I can't open my bedroom window. I'm afraid to let my 3-year-old daughter go into the backyard."

Dayan is one of a growing number of California residents, city officials and lawmakers calling for a crackdown on state-funded sober-living homes - supportive residential facilities whose residents are treated off-site.

Los Angeles leaders are hoping to pass an ordinance by this fall to deal with the homes, and there are two state bills in the works to address the issue.

"During the past few years the placement of these homes in neighborhoods has escalated into a community crisis," City Councilman Greig Smith wrote an in e-mail to the Daily News during a city trip to Japan. "It is believed that thousands of these homes exist in the San Fernando Valley alone. I have seen single blocks with three such homes on them."

Unlicensed and unregulated, sober-living facilities of six or fewer residents have been impervious to city zoning regulations because of federal fair housing protections.

But after passage of the Proposition 36 voter initiative in 2000 to offer drug treatment instead of prison time, much larger group homes have proliferated in residential neighborhoods.

Community rage

While some say the larger homes are protected by law, others contend they are open to local regulation following a recent court decision concerning sober-living homes.

Last month, a federal judge issued a preliminary ruling allowing the city of Newport Beach to force 80 percent of its addiction treatment centers to apply for permits to stay open.

"All eyes are on the outcome in Newport Beach," said David Peters, a lobbyist for the California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources representing 180 drug and alcohol treatment providers.

"If Newport Beach is successful in banning treatment facilities and sober-living facilities in residential neighborhoods, you'd have addiction out of control."

But while many such facilities operate under the premise of sobriety, others do not, homeowners and officials say. Some homes, operating under the guise of sober living after treatment, will pack their homes with virtually anyone.

The result, critics say, is blight. And mounting community rage.

"Neighborhoods are suffering," said Peggy Burgess, a member of the North Hills West Neighborhood Council, the first of a growing number of councils to oppose such homes.

"They're being destroyed by addicts, alcoholics, parolees, probationers, including sex offenders. Neighbors are being harassed. Children can't play in their own yards. We can't park or walk in our own neighborhoods."

State legislation

City officials are listening.

In October, Smith called for a study on how to regulate sober-living homes, possibly through conditional-use permits. Officials hope to pass a sober-living home ordinance as early as this fall.

Meanwhile, a committee of lawmakers in Sacramento this week will consider AB 724, a bill that would strictly define who can live at a sober-living home so cities can control imposters. Another bill that would require the licensing of such homes, SB 992, is also in the works.

"I know that there are those who are claiming to be a sober-living home who do not have any kind of program," said John Benoit, R-Palm Desert, author of AB 724.

Smith said sober-living homes have mushroomed in the past 10 years because of a state need to find housing for probationers and others. He said "greedy property owners" have lined up to milk earnings of up to $8,000 a month from rents paid by the state for individual boarders.

The result, he said, is that cities have become powerless to control homes intended for community service that have instead become big business - with "hundreds of such homes in each community" not kept to community standards.

"The answer can only come through a return of local land use controls that protect ALL interests," Smith wrote in his e-mail.

Neighbors' complaints

In Granada Hills, residents complained of a group home containing a dozen men living in a two-bedroom, one-bath backyard house that has resulted in increased panhandling, trespassing and public intoxication.
"This certainly isn't a sober-living home, because many of these guys aren't sober," said Dave Beauvais, president of the Old Granada Hills Residents' Group, who lives two doors away. "Every afternoon, almost without exception, two or three of them will get into an argument, with four-letter words."

In Woodland Hills, a sober-living home housing up to 20 residents for $3,000 a month drew 150 signatures from angry residents for a petition to City Hall.

Residents complain of parking snarls, trash, noise, late-night disruptions and lewd comments made by young adults. A second home sprouted up just around the corner.

"Since they moved into the neighborhood, we've had an increase in mostly petty crimes - eggs being thrown at windows, wine bottles being thrown at windows - one sailed through an elderly couple's window and landed on the bed," said Judy Rucker of the Woodford Manor Association. "I definitely feel there should be regulations, oversight, something."

The state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs currently registers nearly 950 licensed residential treatment facilities and more than 1,000 outpatient centers.

Though it does not regulate sober-living homes, some in the industry want the state to license homes where substance abusers can live, work and regain their lives with group support within their communities.

But give cities the right to regulate - or banish - them, and they say many alcoholics and addicts will suffer.
"If cities are suddenly allowed to say no, there are not going to be a lot of options," Peters said. "By making more facilities get licensed, the state exercises control ... with all kinds of authority to sanction the program operator."

Sober College, a for-profit rehab educational center based in Woodland Hills, runs three sober-living homes where 60 young adult residents pay $6,500 a month.

Last February, it opened the home on Melvin Street that includes some rear apartments next to Dayan's house just south of the Orange Line.

Administrators said they've done everything to appease neighbors, including building an 8-foot fence, restricting cars and consigning smokers to a limited smoking area.

"I feel we're a good neighbor," said Robert Pfeifer, founder of Sober College. "Our students are not involved in illegal activities.

"We're bringing people to the community who give back value - they're getting jobs, they're going to school."

But Dayan, a building contractor from Israel, disagreed. The house next door has caused his children's friends to cancel play dates, he said, adding that it's not fair he must live next to an unregulated business.

"We put all our life savings in here, $1.5 million to $2 million," Dayan said. "Now we have a drug rehab next door. Who's going to buy a $1.5 million-to-$2 million house - or raise their kids - next to a drug rehab?

"All my life savings goes down the drain. I don't know how my girls are going to grow up here, living next to this."

dana.bartholomew@dailynews.com 818-713-3730






http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_9669084

What will they think of next?

This is sad. These people need to be put in the middle of the desert where they can't get to the general public and be a nuisance. The people in this story are obviously not fully rehabilitated. What an outrage.

But Dayan, a building contractor from Israel, disagreed. The house next door has caused his children's friends to cancel play dates, he said, adding that it's not fair he must live next to an unregulated business.

"We put all our life savings in here, $1.5 million to $2 million," Dayan said. "Now we have a drug rehab next door. Who's going to buy a $1.5 million-to-$2 million house - or raise their kids - next to a drug rehab?

"All my life savings goes down the drain. I don't know how my girls are going to grow up here, living next to this."

Well Dayan, it's not fair when someone who sunk their life savings in a $250k home has 30 illegal aliens living next door either. After all, who wants to buy that house, hmmm?

Just because your home is worth $1m+ doesn't insulate you any better.

Pittville Plus -

A ten fence around their houses, and a barrier probably wouldn't help make good neighbors here. With a house like this only men need to live in the neighborhood. And these poor men would hate the neighbors in no time at all. Poor man above has imprisoned his children to the house for safety issues. Can you blame him?

crazybird:

I bet some people living next door to an 8 hour shift, illegal alien sleeping houses have some bad stories to tell, too? I had one illegal alien tell me I can't go in until it is my turn to sleep.

Nasty!

AmericanMe:

Isolate them in the North Dakota, or there bouts?

Just because your home is worth $1m+ doesn't insulate you any better.

It's always nice as long as it's in someone elses neighborhood.

Have mixed feelings on this. Used to be only people who wanted to get better went to these places. Then they started court mandating it and you got a bunch who had no desire to change and were just doing their time playing the game to avoid jail time. Not to mention the "too good" crowd might be surprised to find out their lovely neighbor might be "one of them" too.

It's sad when what is a necessary part of rehabilitation has been made a do-good dumping ground for some who want to make a buck off the suffering of others. It depends on who is running these facilities and what standards they adhere to as to what neighbors they might make. Yes, some are nothing more than drop houses with the worst of the worst hanging around. And others have Dr's and lawyers and grandmothers and generally nice people who are trying to change their life and are using the facility for a few months to get their lives back together.

Plus, where would they suggest they have these facilities? Down in the hood surrounded with drug dealers and bars at every turn? Kind of hard to gain hope for a better life and inspiration for change when you're still sitting in the middle of it. Can't say I've ever seen a re-hab or half-way house where booze bottles or foul language would be allowed because it's usually grounds for instant removal. But I can see how easily it could happen with the wrong owners who are concerned about just money and not the welfare of the clients or the neighbors.

Another example of what happens when the government sticks their nose in and starts funding or mandating to anyone.

"crazybird"...You make some very valid points; however, I am adamantly opposed to putting these facilities into residential neighborhoods. They are for-profit businesses. It's really no different than your next door neighbor turning his home into a drop house for illegals..for profit...$500/per person. The only difference is one is State-funded. and the other is given a wink and a nod from the State. Either way, it has a negative impact on FAMILES. It's a slice of life that does not belong in our neighborhoods...whether you own a $250K home or a $1M home.

There are plenty of isolated locations in the mountains, for instance, that would be much more accomodating for this type of situation.

Just my .02 cents!

There are plenty of isolated locations in the mountains, for instance, that would be much more accomodating for this type of situation.

I don't know about California but many rehabs are in isolated areas. Rehabs are different than half-way houses. What this article describes is what I would consider a half-way house. Which means they have been sober and clean for a period of time and are comming from a rehab to continue getting back to mainstream life and used to be they were screened for any criminal issues. There used to be very strict behavior rules, you must get a job and work and no drugs or alcohol etc. It's for a limited time and you are free to leave at will and they can kick you out at will if you cause problems. But if you can't handle the rules you go. A house full of men scares me, whether they are active, recovering, college students or anything else. I remember people being upset when a college bought a house for a frat house in a neighborhood. It isn't condusive for "family living" with a house full of adults of either gender when you carefully chose your home for the "family environment". So I understand the point, but what you pick as a nice "family" neighborhood is going to be a nice elderly community in a few years. It's against the law to say adults can't be in a "family" community, anymore than you can have a "singles" only community. It changes and screaming kids that I used to enjoy because I had kids are now nothing but boom boxes blasting, cars reving up and a general being trapped in my home because I want to save my own hearing and don't care to watch high school kids practically having sex on their cars. That's not "family" values either.

I'm just saying that this is a needed service and when they are working at getting back into mainstream life.....isolation isn't helping them. Just because they have a problem with alcohol or drugs doesn't make them all horrible criminals or ever even got in trouble. Some decide to get help before it gets to that point.

What angers me is that what was a needed service is now, according to this article, nothing more than a jail substitute. And that I 100% disagree with. I definately wouldn't want a houseful of people who are basicly living there just to avoid jail so some shyster can make a bundle because the court ordered it. You have no way of knowing what's going in there then. It's just that once the government gets in there.....they seems to ruin it. The only difference is the community knows what it is.....you don't get a warning that a drug dealer is moving in next door.

I know here they are angry about wanting to put a group home for mentally disabled in one community. In another area they don't want an elderly day care center in a home. I wasn't fond of a daycare center next door either since my driveway became their parking lot. There's alot of things that shouldn't be in residential communities. But where's the line? I just find it strange where it's no big deal as long as the unsightly isn't in "their" neighborhood. Their life savings of a million is no more valid or more important than than the life savings of 200 thous. one.

good point, crazybird...about the difference between rehab and half-way house. I'm not too informed on the subject, and there is a big difference between the two. I'm wondering why these people aren't living with their families if they have already completed rehab...they have to grow up sometime! And it is just another taxpayer burden.

I don't know if you read about a case last year involving the heinous murder of the wife and two daughters of a beloved physician in a small town somewhere back East (can't remember where). At any rate, two white males followed the wife and daughter of the doctor as they were leaving the dry cleaners near their home. They later broke into the home in the middle of the night, raped the wife and daughters and forced the wife to go to the bank the next a.m. to withdraw a huge sum of money. But, instead of just letting them go free...they returned to the home with them, killed the mother and 2 daughters, tied up the doctor in the basement and shot him multiple times...leaving him for dead. But..the doctor survived, miraculously.

It turned out that the two men, one in his twenties and one in his 50's were living in a residential half-way house a couple of miles away. They both had a long record of drugs and became friends in the half way house. They committed this heinous crime so that they could get drug money!!! All of this while they were pretending to be rehabilitated!!! Thankfully, they were both caught!!!

So, this is why I am so adamantly opposed to residential half way houses. You just never, never know...it could happen to anyone. I could never sleep at night knowing that things like this could, and do...happen. It's not worth the risk.

These half-way houses or rehab are often in lower to middle income neighborhoods, they rarely sully upper income neighborhoods. I have one practically in my backyard and protesting did me no good. I had to install motion sensor lights and a hidden video camera. The center is only open during the day, but so many of them come back and congregate at night. They used to urinate against my back fence, smoke, drink, have sex, you name it.

Document, document, document! Now I turn over copies of videos taken of all the things they do to the cops.