Residential Recovery: How States Experience It
The residential recovery industry has affected certain states disproportionately. Interestingly, it is not the states hit hardest by the opioid epidemic but the states with the most desirable climate for recovery that have been the most impacted. The sunny, beach-filled states of California and Florida have been hit particularly hard, as has Arizona.
California
To be perfectly blunt, while our representatives are concerned about issues of residential recovery, the rest of the California Legislature is mostly concerned with headlines. To them, the addiction epidemic means there can never be enough Recovery Residences; and any additional regulation is by definition onerous or discriminatory, even if less regulation results in crime against the people Residential Recovery is intended to help.
State Health Code (H&S 11834.17-11834.23) precludes cities from any involvement in licensed recovery houses; the code specifically says such a property "...shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance..." and "...for the purpose of all local ordinances, an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility that serves six or fewer persons shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house..." even if it IS a boarding house. In addition, while the initial code was intended to preclude clinical/medical services in residential neighborhoods, the State has gradually given more and more permission to increase the medical services provided. In doing so, it has begun blurring the distinction between Residential Care and Clinical Care in a residential setting.
For decades, the State has supported a model of Residential Care which allows people who benefit from supervised care services to live in residential neighborhoods, with up to 6 unrelated tenants in the house. However, most of these forms of Residential Care are long term, not boarding houses. In offering to let businesses operate short-term housing in long term, single-family residential neighborhoods, the state created an arbitrage even greater than that of AirBnb: short term occupancy contracts can charge more for the same space than long term contracts; therefore, businesses catering to the disabled can make profits off properties that others who are prohibited from operating boarding houses can not. In its regulations, the State specifically stepped on the rights of municipalities to define the rules by which ALL residents, regardless of their disabilities, live in single-family zoning. In effect, California has created a Gold Rush for businesses to buy up and rent-out properties that were previously unavailable to businesses.
A second state law called FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) is an extension of the Federal Government's Fair Housing Act. For more information about how this comes into play, see "Residential Recovery: How the Federal Government Regulates It."
It is symbolic of how badly these businesses want to maintain this undeserved and lucrative privilege of boarding houses in residential neighborhoods that all over the country, and particularly in Southern California, businesses have repeatedly sued cities (including Dana Point, San Clemente, Newport Beach, Malibu and Costa Mesa) that have attempted to regulate them, claiming the right to sue based on “discrimination” against their occupants under the Fair Housing Act. They have also actively sued citizens who have spoken out about the issue, accusing them of discrimination as well. The cost to municipalities of these suits has been staggering; and yet, we are unaware of any disabled person having been involved or named in these suits. In reality, Recovering Addicts are not feeling deprived of an equal access to housing; businesses want to maintain their entitlement to operate however they please, wherever they please.
State Health Code (H&S 11834.17-11834.23) precludes cities from any involvement in licensed recovery houses; the code specifically says such a property "...shall be considered a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance..." and "...for the purpose of all local ordinances, an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility that serves six or fewer persons shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house..." even if it IS a boarding house. In addition, while the initial code was intended to preclude clinical/medical services in residential neighborhoods, the State has gradually given more and more permission to increase the medical services provided. In doing so, it has begun blurring the distinction between Residential Care and Clinical Care in a residential setting.
For decades, the State has supported a model of Residential Care which allows people who benefit from supervised care services to live in residential neighborhoods, with up to 6 unrelated tenants in the house. However, most of these forms of Residential Care are long term, not boarding houses. In offering to let businesses operate short-term housing in long term, single-family residential neighborhoods, the state created an arbitrage even greater than that of AirBnb: short term occupancy contracts can charge more for the same space than long term contracts; therefore, businesses catering to the disabled can make profits off properties that others who are prohibited from operating boarding houses can not. In its regulations, the State specifically stepped on the rights of municipalities to define the rules by which ALL residents, regardless of their disabilities, live in single-family zoning. In effect, California has created a Gold Rush for businesses to buy up and rent-out properties that were previously unavailable to businesses.
A second state law called FEHA (Fair Employment and Housing Act) is an extension of the Federal Government's Fair Housing Act. For more information about how this comes into play, see "Residential Recovery: How the Federal Government Regulates It."
It is symbolic of how badly these businesses want to maintain this undeserved and lucrative privilege of boarding houses in residential neighborhoods that all over the country, and particularly in Southern California, businesses have repeatedly sued cities (including Dana Point, San Clemente, Newport Beach, Malibu and Costa Mesa) that have attempted to regulate them, claiming the right to sue based on “discrimination” against their occupants under the Fair Housing Act. They have also actively sued citizens who have spoken out about the issue, accusing them of discrimination as well. The cost to municipalities of these suits has been staggering; and yet, we are unaware of any disabled person having been involved or named in these suits. In reality, Recovering Addicts are not feeling deprived of an equal access to housing; businesses want to maintain their entitlement to operate however they please, wherever they please.
Florida
Residential Recovery operators are aggressively exploiting Florida’s coastal neighborhoods as well. In contrast with the disinterest of Sacramento, Florida’s representatives have pursued illegal activities harming Recovering Addicts and pushed for change at a Federal level. Examples of Florida’s activities include:
1) Florida Congresswoman Lois Frankel invited US Dept. of HUD Assistant Secretary Gustavo Velasquez to go to Delray and meet with 30 local government leaders. This resulted in a Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and HUD entitled “State and Local Use Laws and Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing Act.”
2) Congresswoman Frankel also engaged Florida Senator Rubio and Senators Hatch and Warren in asking that the Government Accountability Office review federal and state oversight of “sober homes.” The letter was also signed by California Representatives Issa (So. Cal. Coast), Calvert (Riverside), Royce (San Bernardino), and Rohrabacher (Beach Cities).
3) The Florida Legislature allocated $275,000 to Palm Beach County (Florida) State Attorney David Aronberg to investigate potential corruption and find solutions.
4) Aronberg convened a Grand Jury “…to investigate how government agencies are responding to corruption and recommend ways to improve oversight.” In just a few month, the Grand Jury issued a 37-page report with 15 proposed to change laws and increase criminal penalties for those exploiting addicts.
5) Aronberg formed a “Palm Beach County Sober Homes Task Force,” which in six months created its own report,"Identification of Problems in the Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery Residence Industries with Recommended Changes to Existing Laws and Regulations."
6) In 7 months, Aronberg’s Task Force aggressively investigated and charged unscrupulous operators with crimes.
Advocates for Responsible Treatment can only express disappointment that government officials in Sacramento have failed to do the same.
1) Florida Congresswoman Lois Frankel invited US Dept. of HUD Assistant Secretary Gustavo Velasquez to go to Delray and meet with 30 local government leaders. This resulted in a Joint Statement of the Department of Justice and HUD entitled “State and Local Use Laws and Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing Act.”
2) Congresswoman Frankel also engaged Florida Senator Rubio and Senators Hatch and Warren in asking that the Government Accountability Office review federal and state oversight of “sober homes.” The letter was also signed by California Representatives Issa (So. Cal. Coast), Calvert (Riverside), Royce (San Bernardino), and Rohrabacher (Beach Cities).
3) The Florida Legislature allocated $275,000 to Palm Beach County (Florida) State Attorney David Aronberg to investigate potential corruption and find solutions.
4) Aronberg convened a Grand Jury “…to investigate how government agencies are responding to corruption and recommend ways to improve oversight.” In just a few month, the Grand Jury issued a 37-page report with 15 proposed to change laws and increase criminal penalties for those exploiting addicts.
5) Aronberg formed a “Palm Beach County Sober Homes Task Force,” which in six months created its own report,"Identification of Problems in the Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery Residence Industries with Recommended Changes to Existing Laws and Regulations."
6) In 7 months, Aronberg’s Task Force aggressively investigated and charged unscrupulous operators with crimes.
Advocates for Responsible Treatment can only express disappointment that government officials in Sacramento have failed to do the same.