Reply to Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Petition about residential treatment ctr by Greenwood Elementary"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If you attended the meeting or watch the taped zoom meeting, you can tell why they pushed the netting out a few weeks in order to equip the speakers with talking points meant to allay concerns and push back on community concerns.

The council member led off with comments that demonstrated where she stands. She also stated that there’s no need to change the zoning laws since that won’t fix the current situation. She neglected to explain why the county doesn’t want to fix the problem so it doesn’t happen moving forward.

Then she read a list of questions that were given to the business/treatment center (who didn’t show up), and the questions were obviously meant to prompt answers painting the facility in a favorable light. She read their answers after explaining they actually purchased 3 lots (that only have 2 houses…for now), so they can have 24 residents eventually.

The law enforcement Rep clearly was handed talking points to butter up the crowd with compliments about how close knit the community is and how it makes his job easy to handle any issues that come up. Then he reminded everyone that the community is very safe and they have effective models to prevent issues. (That last point made people laugh out loud.) The police officer also said that some of his colleagues have substance abuse issues and people shouldn’t judge them.

Then the council member went bananas. She scolded people for making assumptions about people, drawing a false equivalence by intimating we don’t know if other people are already in the school with substance use issues (presumably teachers). This isn’t helpful because the facility is a level 3.5 for people will severe issues such that they cannot function and require supervised treatment 24/7. Clearly those patients have far different needs than anyone working in the school.

When someone pointed out inaccuracies in the county’s legal analysis of fair housing (noting it protects people who have recovered, not those in treatment) and followed up by pointing out how the dubious exceptions don’t apply—and then flagged that the developer likely lied to get permitting, etc.—and summed up by pointing out the rapid growth of facilities in a neighborhood, citing issues about how the operators aren’t helpful—the Councilmember said she wasn’t aware of any permitting approvals needed at this point.

A gentleman in the audience who is a retired lawyer summed it up by saying there’s a lobby pushing all these facilities through in neighborhoods across the county.

Why next to an elementary school? Good question. The councilmember’s response was that the business is allowed to do this by right/per zoning law.

Next: seems like emails to the Office of the County Attorney to ask them to reevaluate their analysis given the business purchased 3 properties individually…to pull a fast one. 1. They shouldn’t be allowed to operate a single facility with so many people by tallying up the max allowable per single unit. 2. Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to people in treatment. 3. They likely lied about a variety things to get their permits.

Re: how patients will be transported - county couldn’t answer.

When asked why the zoning amendment wouldn’t work, the Councilmember couldn’t answer. She claimed it wouldn’t work retroactively at the top of the meeting. When pressed, Victor Salazar, division chief for zoning, said their interpretation is that they are allowed by right to have up to 8 patients in each residence. They are treating each house separately, permitted by right.

They originally applied for commercial permits which were denied. Salazar said that was likely in error. They can be treated as individual residences and benefit from the zoning laws now. He kept saying they are permitted by right. Then he said anyone in the room could do the same thing in their own house so long as they get the appropriate permits.

Next question: they asked how they will enforce 8 person occupancy per residence. The response was complaints to DPS trigger inspection.

Next: someone asked about analytics from the Fredrick facility where the business owns another treatment facility. Of course, they had not. Instead, they double downed on how law enforcement will quickly respond to any issues.

The school principal was present along with someone from mcps. Mcps rep tossed a word salad that was unresponsive to the question.

Next: someone asked if they could add additional structures on the 3 properties or add outpatient services. The county said they don’t believe they can do outpatient. And they said the next level up from 3.5 is a level 4–which is hospital level…so it’s unlikely they can increase their treatment level. (PS - Yikes! 3.5 is super high!) And the Planning Dept guy said they would need to post a sign before they could increase # of beds beyond 16.

Another question for Salazar/Planning: with the 3 properties owned and managed by 1 company, why aren’t we making them go through the permitting process since it will be such a large, disruptive facility impacting the neighborhood? She flagged that this will impact our county—why would anyone buy a home in MoCo when the county lets businesses  operate such facilities in SFHs?

The county responded by saying they will continue to view the 3 properties/currently with 2 houses separately.

Next question was about security—would it be increased. The county punted to the school’s being required to have safety/emergency plans.

Clarified that it’s limited to 8 people spending the night. The overnight nurse counts towards the 8.

Jawando was on zoom but said nothing.

State delegate Zucker was on zoom but said nothing.

Last question: pointed out that determining use and permitting matters, noting it’s currently vague and they are gaming the system. [/quote]

This is a really impressive overview of what transpired. Unfortunately, I feel like MCPS will do nothing to increase security and is relying on the company and the PTA to broker an arrangement.  [/quote]

At best, the company will erect a privacy fence and plant some trees.

I think all county residents should be very concerned. This can happen in any SFH: a level 3.5 treatment facility can be your new neighbor…and it can be right next to a school.

But don’t worry, folks. There will be an overnight nurse (just 1) to make sure the residents (with impulse control issues to the point they aren’t safe to be left alone, hence this level 3.5 facility) don’t get out of hand.

The business says it’s against their policy for patients to leave the property. Lolz. It’s not a jail. What can they possibly do to prevent anyone from leaving? Nothing. But don’t worry, in the company’s written response they assured everyone that if someone becomes a threat or presents an issue, they will transport them off property to a safe location…whatever the heck that means…and as if that’s even possible. If someone is spiraling out, far chance the lone nurse can handle it.

Ask me how I know.

Here ya go: I know a nurse who was assaulted during an overnight shift at an area hospital ER because she was left alone (which she should not have been) with a male patient with mental health issues who was on something.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics