Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary

[Anonymous]

Nobody is saying we don’t want group homes or residential treatment homes in Brookeville or in this specific neighborhood. In fact, there are group homes already in this neighborhood.

Rather, we are begging the County to recognize that such a large facility (16+ beds) serving people with such complex needs shouldn’t be located on the literal border of a school—or on a neighborhood street for that matter.

A 4 person group home in a 3 bedroom house a few blocks away from the school? Sure. I mean, we already have one of those.

If the county doesn’t find a solution, you can count on at least 1k voters remembering how we were abandoned by our leaders while a Florida-based company’s business venture was prioritized over commonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is saying we don’t want group homes or residential treatment homes in Brookeville or in this specific neighborhood. In fact, there are group homes already in this neighborhood.

Rather, we are begging the County to recognize that such a large facility (16+ beds) serving people with such complex needs shouldn’t be located on the literal border of a school—or on a neighborhood street for that matter.

A 4 person group home in a 3 bedroom house a few blocks away from the school? Sure. I mean, we already have one of those.

If the county doesn’t find a solution, you can count on at least 1k voters remembering how we were abandoned by our leaders while a Florida-based company’s business venture was prioritized over commonsense.

I believe we already have 3 in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Awful to call these people NIMBYS. They are protecting and caring for our schools which is a cross-county community. People are signing the petition who don’t live near or at all close to the neighborhood. Why? BC of common sense. Stop with the overuse of NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

I support this facility's existence and its location.

OP, you are a NIMBY. God forbid it doesn't come back to bite you in the form of a child with a dual diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support this facility's existence and its location.

OP, you are a NIMBY. God forbid it doesn't come back to bite you in the form of a child with a dual diagnosis.

Why?

Why support it by a school when it could be located elsewhere?

Why support a 16+ bed for-profit facility on a tiny cul-de-sac squeezed between two little houses when it could be located elsewhere?

They are abusing the zoning loophole to maximize their own profits.

Literally nobody can justify this specific project at this scale in this location. Nobody.

And I’m glad people across the county are signing the petition. Hopefully the county council will wake up and take action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

NP. Maybe because the "not next to my school playground!" arguments could be applied to low-incidence special education students and programs, too. Serious behavior problems, poor impulse control, and need for intensive monitoring describes most of the students at Carl Sandburg, which is co-located with Maryvale ES, or Rock Terrace, which is co-located with Tilden. Or ESESES at Magruder. Or RICA. Or the Extensions programs, whose very small number of students are generally severely cognitively impaired and physically aggressive toward themselves and others. There isn't an argument to be made about "not THOSE people in MY neighborhood" that couldn't be applied in some way to target other programs and their own students. At least in my view.

[Anonymous]

Councilmember Luedtke's office has confirmed there will be a Community Meeting to discuss the Freedom Center (the 16+ bed residential treatment center sited by the school) on Monday, March 24 from 7-8 p.m. in the all-purpose room at Greenwood.

If residents have questions, they can email Councilmember Luedtke's Chief of Staff Aaron Kraut at this email:[e-mail]

[Anonymous]

This is a 3.5 level facility. This is what it means. There is no reason to have this type of facility next to an elementary school!

Level 3.5 is clinically managed residential services. These services are designed for people with serious psychological or social issues who need 24-hour oversight and are at risk of imminent harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should question the judgment of the County’s DPS as well as elected officials for letting this happen and not stepping up to find a solution.

They are collectively shrugging their shoulders rather than engaging to steer this in another direction.

People must voice their concerns (in large numbers) if there is any chance of preventing this from happening.

Correct. Best targets for action are DPS, County Council and Elrich. All three are the key decision makers here.

MCPS is just the victim of this decision.

Then why aren’t they speaking up?

NP. Maybe because the "not next to my school playground!" arguments could be applied to low-incidence special education students and programs, too. Serious behavior problems, poor impulse control, and need for intensive monitoring describes most of the students at Carl Sandburg, which is co-located with Maryvale ES, or Rock Terrace, which is co-located with Tilden. Or ESESES at Magruder. Or RICA. Or the Extensions programs, whose very small number of students are generally severely cognitively impaired and physically aggressive toward themselves and others. There isn't an argument to be made about "not THOSE people in MY neighborhood" that couldn't be applied in some way to target other programs and their own students. At least in my view.

No. Big difference between program for children and adults. Adults are free to leave the property any time they desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at an mcps school with a neighboring residential treatment facility and it was trouble...(Blair Ewing building and avery treatment center next door). It was trouble...we had patients wandering into the building--although usually just scaring the staff who were there at 4 pm and later. And there was a lot more land between these buildings.

Trust that some of these patients will wander onto the school grounds.

Exactly.

It’s not a lockdown facility, so the 16+ patients with acute addiction, mental health, and impulse control issues will be out and about.

And unlike the facility pp referenced, this facility literally borders the school playground and its driveway/front yard is squeezed between two SFHs on a very small cul-de-sac.

I lived across the street from a residential treatment facility and saw a knife fight in the street, two women in a fist fight that resulted in police arriving with guns drawn and another fight that left someone beaten to a pulp in the street. No thank you. People have a right to make enough money to live in a neighborhood that is typically safe and suburban if that's what they choose.

No. Every child deserves an education in a safe environment, which means the advocacy on this needs to be about policy not one neighborhood.

People don't have a right to a safe environment -- they have to earn their way there like everyone else. This is not the soviet union.

I look forward to your testimony at County Council regarding how children in other parts of the county have not "earned" safety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at an mcps school with a neighboring residential treatment facility and it was trouble...(Blair Ewing building and avery treatment center next door). It was trouble...we had patients wandering into the building--although usually just scaring the staff who were there at 4 pm and later. And there was a lot more land between these buildings.

Trust that some of these patients will wander onto the school grounds.

Exactly.

It’s not a lockdown facility, so the 16+ patients with acute addiction, mental health, and impulse control issues will be out and about.

And unlike the facility pp referenced, this facility literally borders the school playground and its driveway/front yard is squeezed between two SFHs on a very small cul-de-sac.

I lived across the street from a residential treatment facility and saw a knife fight in the street, two women in a fist fight that resulted in police arriving with guns drawn and another fight that left someone beaten to a pulp in the street. No thank you. People have a right to make enough money to live in a neighborhood that is typically safe and suburban if that's what they choose.

No. Every child deserves an education in a safe environment, which means the advocacy on this needs to be about policy not one neighborhood.

People don't have a right to a safe environment -- they have to earn their way there like everyone else. This is not the soviet union.

I look forward to your testimony at County Council regarding how children in other parts of the county have not "earned" safety.

+1

That post was disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this facility's existence and its location.

OP, you are a NIMBY. God forbid it doesn't come back to bite you in the form of a child with a dual diagnosis.

Why?

Why support it by a school when it could be located elsewhere?

Why support a 16+ bed for-profit facility on a tiny cul-de-sac squeezed between two little houses when it could be located elsewhere?

They are abusing the zoning loophole to maximize their own profits.

Literally nobody can justify this specific project at this scale in this location. Nobody.

And I’m glad people across the county are signing the petition. Hopefully the county council will wake up and take action.

Because that elementary school is a federal drug-free school zone, which means the enforcement of sobriety requirements at this facility will be ferocious. And that means that this really not appreciably different than any other group of 16 people living in a house, which is not uncommon and none of your business.

Everyone needs to live somewhere, and that includes people trying to recover from substance abuse and mental health issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this facility's existence and its location.

OP, you are a NIMBY. God forbid it doesn't come back to bite you in the form of a child with a dual diagnosis.

Why?

Why support it by a school when it could be located elsewhere?

Why support a 16+ bed for-profit facility on a tiny cul-de-sac squeezed between two little houses when it could be located elsewhere?

They are abusing the zoning loophole to maximize their own profits.

Literally nobody can justify this specific project at this scale in this location. Nobody.

And I’m glad people across the county are signing the petition. Hopefully the county council will wake up and take action.

Because that elementary school is a federal drug-free school zone, which means the enforcement of sobriety requirements at this facility will be ferocious. And that means that this really not appreciably different than any other group of 16 people living in a house, which is not uncommon and none of your business.

Everyone needs to live somewhere, and that includes people trying to recover from substance abuse and mental health issues.

Who wants to live next to a house (or in this case, a for-profit residential treatment facility) with 16+ people (plus staff)?

It’s like living next to a house party 24/7.

ICYMI: addicts/alcoholics are big time smokers. Who wants to see dozens of people smoking outside by the school?

Again, it’s the size and scope of this project.

As noted in the thread, our neighborhood already has multiple residential group homes. We aren’t nimbys. The difference is a 4 person home is very different than a 16+ business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this facility's existence and its location.

OP, you are a NIMBY. God forbid it doesn't come back to bite you in the form of a child with a dual diagnosis.

Why?

Why support it by a school when it could be located elsewhere?

Why support a 16+ bed for-profit facility on a tiny cul-de-sac squeezed between two little houses when it could be located elsewhere?

They are abusing the zoning loophole to maximize their own profits.

Literally nobody can justify this specific project at this scale in this location. Nobody.

And I’m glad people across the county are signing the petition. Hopefully the county council will wake up and take action.

Because that elementary school is a federal drug-free school zone, which means the enforcement of sobriety requirements at this facility will be ferocious. And that means that this really not appreciably different than any other group of 16 people living in a house, which is not uncommon and none of your business.

Everyone needs to live somewhere, and that includes people trying to recover from substance abuse and mental health issues.

Who wants to live next to a house (or in this case, a for-profit residential treatment facility) with 16+ people (plus staff)?

It’s like living next to a house party 24/7.

ICYMI: addicts/alcoholics are big time smokers. Who wants to see dozens of people smoking outside by the school?

Again, it’s the size and scope of this project.

As noted in the thread, our neighborhood already has multiple residential group homes. We aren’t nimbys. The difference is a 4 person home is very different than a 16+ business.

I have lived next to houses with 16+ people for prolonged periods of my adult life and liked it. I'm living in eyeshot of a significantly larger right now, actually. I don't know why you assume that your personal preferences for hypersuburbanized cul-de-sac monoculture are the preferences of a majority.

It is not the size and scope of the project that you object to, anyway; you don't like the idea of who will be living there, as your repeated digressions about the characteristics of addicts demonstrate. Own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support this facility's existence and its location.

OP, you are a NIMBY. God forbid it doesn't come back to bite you in the form of a child with a dual diagnosis.

Why?

Why support it by a school when it could be located elsewhere?

Why support a 16+ bed for-profit facility on a tiny cul-de-sac squeezed between two little houses when it could be located elsewhere?

They are abusing the zoning loophole to maximize their own profits.

Literally nobody can justify this specific project at this scale in this location. Nobody.

And I’m glad people across the county are signing the petition. Hopefully the county council will wake up and take action.

Because that elementary school is a federal drug-free school zone, which means the enforcement of sobriety requirements at this facility will be ferocious. And that means that this really not appreciably different than any other group of 16 people living in a house, which is not uncommon and none of your business.

Everyone needs to live somewhere, and that includes people trying to recover from substance abuse and mental health issues.

Good news: MCPS has no intention in policing our ensuring that it's schools are in fact drug-free zones.