Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary

[Anonymous]

Haven’t seen anyone point this out yet. It’s 16 patients who ONLY STAY for 30-60 days of treatment. So in one year it could be as many as 192 patients who pass through. And that’s just in the two existing homes. The company also bought a third plot of land next door and you better bet they’ll be building another house there soon. And then a few more after that… any MoCo neighborhood could be next.

[Anonymous]

Miserable failure by our elected leaders, especially the petulant Luedtke who doesn’t care about our kids or our votes because she is “highly employable”. And if anyone dares to question whether the placement of this facility is appropriate she’ll take the opportunity to scold and shame you to divert from the fact that she’s totally incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Agreed- her tone was awful. It’s like she doesn’t know that the community she represents at all. Brookeville is the warmest and most down to earth place I’ve ever lived. Many of my neighbors have friends or family who are addicts. I hate that she’s pushing a narrative that anyone who questions the placement of this facility next to an elementary school is not supportive of rehabilitation. In fact, many of us are also concerned about the patients who wind up here, as they’ll be under heightened scrutiny more than they would be almost anywhere else. Will the staff be less likely to call for emergency responders when needed because they don’t want to be dinged for neighborhood/ school disruptions? It’s just a recipe for disaster for our most vulnerable, young children and addicts. This is ONLY a good deal for the for-profit company… and apparently somehow our county government (because obviously there’s money involved here right!?)

[Anonymous]

Like previous posters, I'm really confused about why Leudtke is so intent on providing cover for this business. There probably is campaign funding being traded here. Maybe there are personal connections too with the owners of the business (who lied in the real estate transactions about their intent for the properties). At any rate she made it clear she feels contempt and superiority to the community being impacted.

I was in the meeting in person and was outright shocked at the public meltdown she had, as an elected official, yelling at the community that she doesn't care, and acting like we were monsters for not wanting a 3.5 level treatment facility NEXT TO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND ITS PLAYGROUND. Her assistant was actively cutting off the microphone so residents couldn't finish their comments or voice their concern. They kept going to questions from the zoom audience so they wouldn't have to hear from the community members present. It was all very managed. I came away really disheartened, realizing our local county officials aren't actually there to serve their citizens but rather businesses.

If the county wanted to they could use common sense to interpret the law as treating any contiguous properties owned by the same corporation as one property. If there's an obvious loophole then fix it. Why just throw up your hands and say it's a loophole and there's nothing that can be done? It's rings very false, we all see through it.

If at the end of the day there's no such thing as residential zoning, because any neighborhood could get inundated with businesses, then why do we pretend there is? Why do we even have the category "residential."

Why are we pretending that a business is not a business?

I also can't understand why this business is being so shady. What are they trying to hide or get away with, beyond all the shady stuff they've already done? Why did no one at this business question whether putting their addiction medical facility NEXT TO A SCHOOL was a good idea? Why do they want to operate in a neighborhood where everyone actively hates them? Where they've done nothing to instill confidence? And a neighborhood that will be ready to call the police for every infraction? From a business perspective this seems like placing a lot of risk on a business. It also doesn't seem like such a great set-up for the patients themselves, you know, the patients that Leudtke claims to be such a passionate campaigner for.

[Anonymous]

The business is being shady because they know what they are doing would draw opposition.

Moreover, they know their patients have very serious issues that will impact the community.

Ever watch someone with severe mental health issues and impulse control issues get dropped off at a facility? Nothing about it is smooth or easy.

Ever watch someone go through withdrawal?
ICYMI: they act out.

The most ridiculous thing we’ve heard twice now is that the facility will make the patients stay inside. Hilarious! It’s not a lockdown facility. People can walk outside. Off property. They will come and go, and they will wander.

There will be outbursts. Cursing. Swearing.

The one predictable thing when dealing with the mentally ill and/or addicts is they are unpredictable.

So have you hired a lawyer yet, Tanterra? What are you waiting for?

[Anonymous]

The moderator of the Olney FB community group (and that’s a whole other story) keeps shutting down the conversations about this.

Is there another group that I’m not aware of where the community is mobilizing and discussing options?

[Anonymous]

Yes! There is a website to organize, provide action items, subscribe for updates, etc.
https://sites.google.com/view/notodrugrehabneargreenwood/home

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typical NIMBY folks. Just move it to that other area just don't build it here.

I hope someday you don't need services and the neighbors decide they are more important than your recovery.

I think it's reasonable to point out that a treatment center like this probably shouldn't border an elementary school. That's not NIMBYism, that's common sense.

Treatment Center like this-You might as well use the words-Those people but look over your shoulder first so nobody hears you saying it

Oh please
I am the daughter of two addicts and just helped put my SIL in an in-patient 60 day program last June. Of course people need help and support. Addicts are also liars, can be abusive, unpredictable, and can have mental illness. It is one thing to live next door two one or two people like this. It is another to have 16 people like this sharing a fence line (consisting of a 6' chain link fence and "privacy trees") bordering an elementary school.

Either you are a troll or completely delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes! There is a website to organize, provide action items, subscribe for updates, etc.
https://sites.google.com/view/notodrugrehabneargreenwood/home

But do you have a lawyer?

The county made its position clear: they will not interpret the zoning and permitting issues in a way to scale this back.

Moreover, they won’t entertain a dialogue on amending the zoning and permitting loopholes to avoid these issues moving forward.

So what’s your plan to effect change?

The petition and news coverage won’t move the needle.

Lawyer up.

And if you want to foster more community pressure, then tweet at the WH. This needs to go national.

[Anonymous]

Believe me the community is taking steps to retain an attorney. It doesn’t happen overnight especially when USR holdings purposefully conflicted out a bunch of local real estate/ zoning attorneys…
And the news did go national, just this morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a similar facility in a SFH in my neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the Argyle Middle School field. Has been brought up in HOA meetings and have been told there's nothing we can do about it because these facilities are protected under county law.

under federal law

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

I'm interested in what federal law you think you are referring to, because you are mistaken as it pertains to the ADA. People in active addiction aren't protected by the ADA. People in active treatment, who are not using substances, are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Believe me the community is taking steps to retain an attorney. It doesn’t happen overnight especially when USR holdings purposefully conflicted out a bunch of local real estate/ zoning attorneys…
And the news did go national, just this morning.

would you mind sharing a link to the national story? This is very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a similar facility in a SFH in my neighborhood that is directly adjacent to the Argyle Middle School field. Has been brought up in HOA meetings and have been told there's nothing we can do about it because these facilities are protected under county law.

under federal law

Actually, people in active treatment are not protected by federal law when it comes to such things. And medical treatment facilities don’t enjoy such protections either.

The county’s current interpretation of the county law is the issue.

And their decision to not amend the law to prevent this from happening again is baffling.

I'm interested in what federal law you think you are referring to, because you are mistaken as it pertains to the ADA. People in active addiction aren't protected by the ADA. People in active treatment, who are not using substances, are.

FHA applies to housing.

This medical facility isn’t housing.

Where does the FHA or ADA say large medical treatment facilities are entitled to operate in multiple single family homes in a residential area next to a school?

^^^
This is why a lawyer is needed to file a lawsuit and make a legal argument.

ICYMI: lawyers test the bounds of legal precedent all the time.

[Anonymous]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/maryland-families-outraged-over-planned-drug-rehab-facility-opening-next-elementary-school.amp

Fox News coverage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/media/maryland-families-outraged-over-planned-drug-rehab-facility-opening-next-elementary-school.amp

Fox News coverage

FTR, I’m a liberal. But I wish Fox would have done more to point out the issues at stake. This national coverage falls short of prompting any sort of public outcry. I guarantee the county welcomes this sort of coverage since it doesn’t question their stance at all.