Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also that no one either at the in person meeting or over zoom spoke in favor of the facility.

This isn't evidence of anything. No one is going to even say, "You know, I think this is not going to be that big a deal" in these meetings, never mind something more favorable towards the facility. People who have done so in the Olney Facebook group have been basically told to shut up by the people who are most loudly opposed.

Nobody has been told to shut up. There were people advocating from both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also that no one either at the in person meeting or over zoom spoke in favor of the facility.

This isn't evidence of anything. No one is going to even say, "You know, I think this is not going to be that big a deal" in these meetings, never mind something more favorable towards the facility. People who have done so in the Olney Facebook group have been basically told to shut up by the people who are most loudly opposed.

Nobody has been told to shut up. There were people advocating from both sides.

Agreed, nobody was told to shut up. The folks arguing for the corporation are either (1) connected with the corporation and its business/profit interests, (2) not living in the neighborhood or even Olney/Brookeville, or (3) don't have kids so can't *imagine* why parents would be concerned. There are also some people living in a leftist fairytale delusion that the 180 residents (annually) should be embraced as "our new neighbors" because community vibes solves everything. Neighbors who are individually residing there for 6-8 weeks or something, so loads of time to develop neighborly relationships. The lack of common sense around the location of this for-profit level 3.5 risk facility is really telling about a lot that's going on in our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also that no one either at the in person meeting or over zoom spoke in favor of the facility.

This isn't evidence of anything. No one is going to even say, "You know, I think this is not going to be that big a deal" in these meetings, never mind something more favorable towards the facility. People who have done so in the Olney Facebook group have been basically told to shut up by the people who are most loudly opposed.

Nobody has been told to shut up. There were people advocating from both sides.

Agreed, nobody was told to shut up. The folks arguing for the corporation are either (1) connected with the corporation and its business/profit interests, (2) not living in the neighborhood or even Olney/Brookeville, or (3) don't have kids so can't *imagine* why parents would be concerned. There are also some people living in a leftist fairytale delusion that the 180 residents (annually) should be embraced as "our new neighbors" because community vibes solves everything. Neighbors who are individually residing there for 6-8 weeks or something, so loads of time to develop neighborly relationships. The lack of common sense around the location of this for-profit level 3.5 risk facility is really telling about a lot that's going on in our country.

Yeah, can't imagine why parents with a different view aren't saying anything...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also that no one either at the in person meeting or over zoom spoke in favor of the facility.

This isn't evidence of anything. No one is going to even say, "You know, I think this is not going to be that big a deal" in these meetings, never mind something more favorable towards the facility. People who have done so in the Olney Facebook group have been basically told to shut up by the people who are most loudly opposed.

Nobody has been told to shut up. There were people advocating from both sides.

Agreed, nobody was told to shut up. The folks arguing for the corporation are either (1) connected with the corporation and its business/profit interests, (2) not living in the neighborhood or even Olney/Brookeville, or (3) don't have kids so can't *imagine* why parents would be concerned. There are also some people living in a leftist fairytale delusion that the 180 residents (annually) should be embraced as "our new neighbors" because community vibes solves everything. Neighbors who are individually residing there for 6-8 weeks or something, so loads of time to develop neighborly relationships. The lack of common sense around the location of this for-profit level 3.5 risk facility is really telling about a lot that's going on in our country.

Yeah, can't imagine why parents with a different view aren't saying anything...

Maybe because their arguments aren't persuasive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also that no one either at the in person meeting or over zoom spoke in favor of the facility.

This isn't evidence of anything. No one is going to even say, "You know, I think this is not going to be that big a deal" in these meetings, never mind something more favorable towards the facility. People who have done so in the Olney Facebook group have been basically told to shut up by the people who are most loudly opposed.

Nobody has been told to shut up. There were people advocating from both sides.

Agreed, nobody was told to shut up. The folks arguing for the corporation are either (1) connected with the corporation and its business/profit interests, (2) not living in the neighborhood or even Olney/Brookeville, or (3) don't have kids so can't *imagine* why parents would be concerned. There are also some people living in a leftist fairytale delusion that the 180 residents (annually) should be embraced as "our new neighbors" because community vibes solves everything. Neighbors who are individually residing there for 6-8 weeks or something, so loads of time to develop neighborly relationships. The lack of common sense around the location of this for-profit level 3.5 risk facility is really telling about a lot that's going on in our country.

Yeah, can't imagine why parents with a different view aren't saying anything...

Maybe because their arguments aren't persuasive

Most aren't to people who are, um, very passionate.

[Anonymous]

It’s because most people understand that the placement isn’t ideal for the children OR for the patients. The only ones who are getting a good deal is a company who PROFITS off of the vulnerable. This has nothing to do with accepting one’s neighbors. If this was a sober living home where folks stayed for a while and could become invested in the community I think there would be a lot less noise. Acute high intensity inpatient treatment with 30 day turn around is not appropriate feet away from a school. I’ve worked and trained in these facilities… unlike most people who want to share their opinions (uneducated guesses) as to whether this will be a “big deal” or not.

[Anonymous]

Yup. But in MoCo there’s always people who love a pissing match on self-righteousness. Just ask Luedtke, she’s their leader!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s because most people understand that the placement isn’t ideal for the children OR for the patients.

Definitely if I were paying $20k for a month of rehab, I'd want to be next to a beach, not an elementary school playground. Maybe the owners should come out this weekend when spring fair is happening, re-evaluate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because most people understand that the placement isn’t ideal for the children OR for the patients.

Definitely if I were paying $20k for a month of rehab, I'd want to be next to a beach, not an elementary school playground. Maybe the owners should come out this weekend when spring fair is happening, re-evaluate.

Is it self-pay or is it through an insurance company?

And for those in the community who do not know, the recording of the meeting is available in the community website that was mentioned a few pages ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s because most people understand that the placement isn’t ideal for the children OR for the patients.

Definitely if I were paying $20k for a month of rehab, I'd want to be next to a beach, not an elementary school playground. Maybe the owners should come out this weekend when spring fair is happening, re-evaluate.

Is it self-pay or is it through an insurance company?

And for those in the community who do not know, the recording of the meeting is available in the community website that was mentioned a few pages ago.

Their website does have a link for insurance, so maybe? Always hard to know what actually will get covered.

[Anonymous]

3.5 level care is generally covered by private insurance and Maryland Medicaid. Take a look at the UnitedHealthcare donations to Luedtke’s husband.

[Anonymous]

All about the Benjamins baby.
Insurance prefers to pay for these very short-term facilities. They’re pushing their agenda, working with for profit companies and politicians, under the guise of “helping” addicts. The science shows better outcomes with longer treatment and longer stays. But insurance companies don’t want to pay for that.

[Anonymous]

1. For-Profit Status Violates Maryland Law

Under Maryland Code, Chapter 10.63.02.B.30, a "Group Home" explicitly excludes facilities "organized wholly or partially to make a profit." The Freedom Centers, owned by investor-driven USR Holdings, is a commercial enterprise, disqualifying it from classification as a group home. This distinction is not a technicality—it’s a fundamental mismatch with the zoning allowances under which the facility seeks approval. Permitting a for-profit entity to masquerade as a group home subverts the intent of Maryland’s health and zoning regulations, prioritizing profit over public welfare.

2. Misalignment with Residential Care Facility Definition

The Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 59, Section 3.3.2.E, defines a Residential Care Facility as a group arrangement for individuals needing "personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living, or for the protection of the individual." Examples include nursing homes and assisted living facilities—settings for long-term, permanent residents. In contrast, The Freedom Centers proposes a temporary, high-intensity inpatient program (30-day stays) for patients requiring ASAM Level 3.5 care, characterized by 24-hour oversight for severe substance use disorders and co-occurring mental health issues. These patients are not "residents" in the traditional sense but individuals receiving short-term medical treatment. This transient, clinical focus does not align with the zoning code’s intent, which supports stable, residential care environments, not commercial treatment centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. For-Profit Status Violates Maryland Law

Under Maryland Code, Chapter 10.63.02.B.30, a "Group Home" explicitly excludes facilities "organized wholly or partially to make a profit." The Freedom Centers, owned by investor-driven USR Holdings, is a commercial enterprise, disqualifying it from classification as a group home. This distinction is not a technicality—it’s a fundamental mismatch with the zoning allowances under which the facility seeks approval. Permitting a for-profit entity to masquerade as a group home subverts the intent of Maryland’s health and zoning regulations, prioritizing profit over public welfare.

2. Misalignment with Residential Care Facility Definition

The Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 59, Section 3.3.2.E, defines a Residential Care Facility as a group arrangement for individuals needing "personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living, or for the protection of the individual." Examples include nursing homes and assisted living facilities—settings for long-term, permanent residents. In contrast, The Freedom Centers proposes a temporary, high-intensity inpatient program (30-day stays) for patients requiring ASAM Level 3.5 care, characterized by 24-hour oversight for severe substance use disorders and co-occurring mental health issues. These patients are not "residents" in the traditional sense but individuals receiving short-term medical treatment. This transient, clinical focus does not align with the zoning code’s intent, which supports stable, residential care environments, not commercial treatment centers.

I hope the lawyers argue this because it is right there in black-and-white.

I wonder what council woman “Highly Employable” Luedtke’s take on this is.

[Anonymous]

Now it looks like this coalition is just a front for Republicans... advertising a "media update" which is just MCGOP fundraising.

https://sites.google.com/view/notodrugrehabneargreenwood/home

Huge mistake, makes it just seem like it's just about bigotry... or maybe they are just telling on themselves.