For-profit Level 3.5 addiction/MH ctr next to mcps school

[Anonymous]

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/maryland-community-outraged-plans-build-drug-rehab-center-near-elementary-school/65-0e554bea-de62-4dda-9a26-3cfad084f2eb

This is outrageous and MoCo residents need visibility so they can take action.

A Florida-based for-profit addiction/behavioral health residential treatment center business quietly purchased two properties next to each other on a quiet neighborhood street between small SFHs. The property backs up to Greenwood Elementary’s playground, separated by a chain link fence. They plan to have 16+ patients/residents.

Apparently current zoning laws allow this.

The linked article/video shows you how the property abuts the school’s playground along with a big security gate at the driveway entrance between two SFHs.

This is apparently happening in other area neighborhoods as well.

Before anyone screams NIMBY, let me say that I’m fine with a for-profit business running this very profitable business endeavor as long as it doesn’t border a school and isn’t situated in a SFH neighborhood squeezed between two houses.

You wouldn’t allow a 24/7 for-profit business to plop itself down in a neighborhood, and I can’t imagine anyone thinks a high-level treatment facility should share a border with a school playground.

They’ve said that they will “keep the patients inside.” It’s not a lockdown facility, so that’s a ridiculous thing to say.

There is a change.org petition and county residents should call and email the County Executive and County Council to voice your concerns.

The County Council has said their hands are tied since current zoning laws allow this. Why not change the law to make clear that such facilities should not border schools—and the interests of Florida-owned for-profit businesses should not take precedence over MoCo homeowners?

While this example is in Brookeville, it’s happening in other pockets of the county. Your neighborhood could be next.

If you go 5 minutes up the road, Brookeville has plenty of houses on big lots—essentially farmland, open fields, etc. They are welcome to build there lucrative business venture there…just not on the border of an elementary school.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty hard to find addiction treatment that is not for-profit. I would infinitely prefer a treatment facility (which will be immediately booting residents who do not comply with treatment—they are aware of the fact that it’s a drug-free school zone, I assure you) to many other possible neighbors.

There but for the grace of someone go you, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s pretty hard to find addiction treatment that is not for-profit. I would infinitely prefer a treatment facility (which will be immediately booting residents who do not comply with treatment—they are aware of the fact that it’s a drug-free school zone, I assure you) to many other possible neighbors.

There but for the grace of someone go you, OP.

My sibling died from addiction, so I get it.

And I don’t have anything against for-profit treatment.

I just don’t think a 16+ bed facility should share a chain link fence line with an elementary school playground—or be squeezed in between two average SFHs on tiny lots.

Why should the business interests of a for-profit company take precedence over residents—both the immediate neighbors as well as the families with kids in the school?

I support having such businesses in more appropriate locations.

Go drive by it and then let us know how you would feel having a 16 bed facility as your nextdoor neighbor—including the ugly oversized fence and commercial security gate at the entrance to the driveway abutting your front yard.

[Anonymous]

Ok, I agree with the woman who'd like the owners to be engaged with the surrounding community but otherwise to me it's fine. Clients have substance use disorders, they aren't sex offenders.

I'm glad more facilities are opening in our county. Otherwise people with substance use challenges often end up in the criminal justice system, which is not the appropriate place for them.

[Anonymous]

The owners have no need to engage with the neighborhood residents. The current zoning law allows this, so they will just move forward.

And the immediate neighbors will just need to deal with not only the day to day nuisance, but also the decreased home value and inability to sell their own house.

The entire neighborhood will suffer since buyers aren’t likely to want their young children at a school with a playground bordering a high level addiction and mental health treatment facility. Schools drive home value, and there will be an impact to home values.

[Anonymous]

At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

Level 3.5 involves high-intensity programs for adults who cannot be treated outside of a 24/7 facility due to severe physical or psychological problems or severe impulse control problems, or because they display dangerous symptoms that require 24-hour monitoring.5,6 Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I agree with the woman who'd like the owners to be engaged with the surrounding community but otherwise to me it's fine. Clients have substance use disorders, they aren't sex offenders.

I'm glad more facilities are opening in our county. Otherwise people with substance use challenges often end up in the criminal justice system, which is not the appropriate place for them.

+1.

[Anonymous]

The “I” is for Inclusion in DEI.

Stop being an assh0!e OP.

[Anonymous]

The OP is absolutely right. I’ll be signing.

[Anonymous]

Maye these adults need walkable access to a school? Families can buy a car or take the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

Level 3.5 involves high-intensity programs for adults who cannot be treated outside of a 24/7 facility due to severe physical or psychological problems or severe impulse control problems, or because they display dangerous symptoms that require 24-hour monitoring.5,6 Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

You wrote this with (read: not in neighborhood homes) on another thread. Most of these kinds of facilities are in neighborhood homes. That's exactly what "freestanding facilities" means. It means not physically attached to a hospital or clinic or other facility. Since people are learning skills to help them return to neighborhood homes, it makes sense for them to practice in neighborhood homes.

The fact that someone has impulsivity issues that mean they need support to stay sober in the early months, or health issues that make detoxing in their own home unsafe for them doesn't make them dangerous to neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

Level 3.5 involves high-intensity programs for adults who cannot be treated outside of a 24/7 facility due to severe physical or psychological problems or severe impulse control problems, or because they display dangerous symptoms that require 24-hour monitoring.5,6 Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

You wrote this with (read: not in neighborhood homes) on another thread. Most of these kinds of facilities are in neighborhood homes. That's exactly what "freestanding facilities" means. It means not physically attached to a hospital or clinic or other facility. Since people are learning skills to help them return to neighborhood homes, it makes sense for them to practice in neighborhood homes.

The fact that someone has impulsivity issues that mean they need support to stay sober in the early months, or health issues that make detoxing in their own home unsafe for them doesn't make them dangerous to neighbors.

Most communities take a more thoughtful approach to zoning to avoid having 16+ people (plus staff) squeezed into a for-profit high level care facility next to a school and in between SFHs.

Most communities would treat such a large and complex care facility in a better location.

This is very different than a nonprofit recovery home with 3 or 4 individuals and a staff person. Equating the two makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

My son goes to Magruder high school, on Muncaster Mill Rd. And while not next door like Magruder, Sequoyah Elementary is around the corner.

It's a residential area, but zoned so that there is an assisted living facility (34 beds) somewhat across the street, and a hospice care facility (14 beds) next door. Their architecture helps them blend in better with a residential area. To me all of these are health care facilities where residential placement is required. I realize substance misuse disorders sound much scarier than infirm and dying people, but they are still people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son goes to Magruder high school, on Muncaster Mill Rd. And while not next door like Magruder, Sequoyah Elementary is around the corner.

It's a residential area, but zoned so that there is an assisted living facility (34 beds) somewhat across the street, and a hospice care facility (14 beds) next door. Their architecture helps them blend in better with a residential area. To me all of these are health care facilities where residential placement is required. I realize substance misuse disorders sound much scarier than infirm and dying people, but they are still people.

Not apples to apples. Those facilities are not right up against the school nor are they squeezed in between two small SFHs.

Additionally, AL and hospice patients are not the same as people with mental health issues, impulse control disorders, and/or addiction. Yes, they are people—very mobile people with rather serious issues. I strongly believe they should have access to residential treatment, but I don’t think a 16+ bed facility belongs alongside a school playground and in between two SFHs.

FYI, the County owns a house on Muncaster Mill. It’s set back from the busy street at the end of a long driveway. That would be an ideal place for such a facility since it doesn’t impact a neighborhood or school.

[Anonymous]

The untreated addict who lives next door is a far greater risk to you than those in structured treatment.