Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope.

I object to the placement of this big business next to a school and in between SFHs for myriad reasons.

[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.

This is the kind of far left insanity that drives people away from the Democratic Party.

[Anonymous]

Nobody in their right mind wants this in their neighborhood or near school children. I have worked with individuals with serious psychiatric issues, many with co morbid substance use issues for 2 decades. They are more likely to commit crimes, be impulsive, lie, steal, be violent- many of them are in and out of the prison. The Greenwood school playground is where many children go after hours to hang out and on weekends, without adult supervision. I personally would no longer allow my children to go there unaccompanied. However, some parents may not be aware of this new treatment center and may continue to send their kids unsupervised, which could be really unsafe. So it goes beyond the school day as well.

[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.

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

So true. At the MS by my house, we see drug interactions/exchanges sometimes when I take my kid to shoot hoops there on weekends.

And my high schooler tells me she’s witnessed kids selling drugs in the restroom.

Nobody is enforcing anything in MCPS and there are certainly no ‘drug-free’ zones.

[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.

This is the kind of far left insanity that drives people away from the Democratic Party.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

So am I correct that under MoCo zoning laws, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop this project aside from asking the owners of the company who have already bought the properties and invested money in their redevelopment to pretty please reconsider?

Seems like a waste of political capital to go after Luedtke and try to stop the project. That ship seems to have sailed. Seems like a better way would be to make life miserable for the owners once they open for business. Every little violation of any ordinance, call it in to 311. It’ll get them caught up in permit hell the next time their permits are up and they try to renew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So am I correct that under MoCo zoning laws, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop this project aside from asking the owners of the company who have already bought the properties and invested money in their redevelopment to pretty please reconsider?

Seems like a waste of political capital to go after Luedtke and try to stop the project. That ship seems to have sailed. Seems like a better way would be to make life miserable for the owners once they open for business. Every little violation of any ordinance, call it in to 311. It’ll get them caught up in permit hell the next time their permits are up and they try to renew.

In theory, this is a good option. But we have a SFH in our neighborhood that is being illegally rented and has had all sorts of violations. Multiple neighbors have called about violations, but enforcement is lax in Montgomery County. There is currently a court case open against the owner, but even with that the wonder gets to continue renting the home out illegally.

Not really much you can do in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Everyone should email the County Executive to ask him to call his Planning Office to better understand how this Florida-based company is leveraging a zoning loophole.

The company should not be allowed to buy two properties and serve a combined 16+ bed facility (plus staff). It’s not allowed by one owner.

This company is sneaky.

Also ask why they can’t do anything to prevent its location next to a school…and why this business’ agenda takes precedence over the interests of the residents (and commonsense).

Copy Councilmember Dawn Luedtke as well.

And copy Councilmember Glass…the guy who just announced he is running for County Executive.

Tell them to fix this.

[Anonymous]

This remains an issue.

And if this can happen in my neighborhood, then it can happen in your neighborhood.

Please sign the petition and email the County Exec and the county council (especially Luedtke) and tell them they must fix this.

[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.

This is the kind of far left insanity that drives people away from the Democratic Party.

I am disappointed in Democrats because the Democratic party fails to show this degree of regard for afflicted people.

What you call “far left insanity” is literally the position Jesus takes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This remains an issue.

And if this can happen in my neighborhood, then it can happen in your neighborhood.

Please sign the petition and email the County Exec and the county council (especially Luedtke) and tell them they must fix this.

I've read the petition, and I don't understand the policy prescription. The proposed "plan" is to retroactively rezone the property. Is that even legal once the purchase has gone through?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

“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.”

No one is afraid to say out loud that housing 16 people with severe diagnoses, impulse control issues and/or dangerous symptoms on a property sharing a fence with an elementary school playground is a bad idea.

I don't understand. If the treatment center is level 3.5, and that level mandates 24 hour supervision, then your best bet as a neighborhood is to document every instance of failure of supervision, and make it clear to the treatment facility that they are courting liability when supervision lapses. The neighborhood should be supporting the neighbors of the treatment facility by funding security cameras in the neighborhood and to monitor school property.

And, in this day and age, no one (treatment patient or otherwise) should be able to access a school without going through the front door and showing ID to the front office.

[Anonymous]

So Im torn, on one hand youre crazy if you don't think people with similar demons don't already live by the school but I know our community would flip out if something similar was inbounds for our ES. Granted I doubt they would buy a couple of 1.5-2mil dollar SFHs to put addicts in but I still get the point. The problem with affordable neighborhoods is that they are affordable

[Anonymous]

This is so weird, to put a treatment facility right next to an elementary school.

On the plus side, that school will be on lockdown every minute of the day to prevent people from wandering over, so at least a school shooting will be less likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Im torn, on one hand youre crazy if you don't think people with similar demons don't already live by the school but I know our community would flip out if something similar was inbounds for our ES. Granted I doubt they would buy a couple of 1.5-2mil dollar SFHs to put addicts in but I still get the point. The problem with affordable neighborhoods is that they are affordable

I heard it’s going to be a 16 person facility. I highly doubt any of us have 16 recovering addicts living next to us.

I’m curious what the business owners are going to say, of course they’re only going to put a positive spin and say wonderful things about their program. I’m sure they’re going to say that they follow all of their procedures to the letter and this won’t be a risk to the community but especially to the school.

Do these facilities report to any health departments? Are they monitored or accredited by any higher organization? How about police activity to their facilities?