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.

Anonymous wrote:You can’t trust a company whose judgment includes buying a drug rehab house right next to an elementary school.

You can google the holding company to find lawsuits against them (primarily in FL where the company is based).

Mcps is impotent. The.best strategy is to try and secure national news attention and ongoing negative local attention. This will put pressure on everyone including the company.

You can’t trust a company whose judgment includes buying a drug rehab house right next to an elementary school.

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.

Unfortunately the principal at Greenwood is not particularly strong so expect that the parent community (who are very strong) will have to make a lot of noise to get some action.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I don't disagree with you in theory, but as an advocacy campaign this needs some work.

First of all, lose the talking points about property values. That's muddying the waters and making it look like student safety is an afterthought rather than the point of the campaign.

Second, focus on this case as an example of the needs for better laws county-wide. As the law stands, this company is absolutely within its legal rights to be where it is. So the point is to change the zoning/regulations, not just to "save" this one elementary school.

Third, why are you listing BoE as decision-makers? Is the theory of change that you could get them to pressure the County? That's a dicey proposition, as there is not really any love lost between BoE and County Council.

The best advocacy strategy is to lawyer up, but this for-profit FL-based company is big and savvy enough to have retained and conflicted out at the usual suspect firms.

Agreed re: talking points about the inappropriate nature of having any such facility border a school—particularly one of this size and scope. MCPS should have visibility on this, as should the Board of Education. Nobody is foolish enough to think they have the power to stop this, but a multipronged advocacy strategy should include visibility by all pertinent stakeholders—and ideally some concern and advocacy. At a minimum, mcps and the county should be negotiating with the company to erect a high quality privacy fence AND landscaping.

Agreed RE: changing the zoning laws moving forward. But the advocacy strategy for the moment should be retaining counsel to prevent this 16+ bed facility from moving forward. The County Executive and County Council exercise their authority in myriad ways when they are so moved, yet they seem to feel powerless here. Strange, no?

Re: home values - the entire neighborhood will be impacted by such a large and obvious acute treatment facility. Why? Because who will want to buy into a neighborhood that feeds into Greenwood? Who wants their kids on a playground bordering this? And that’s why everyone that feeds into this school should care.

Lastly, this will continue to happen across our county. Why wouldn’t this FL-based company continue to build and operate oversized facilities in neighborhoods unless someone pushes back?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

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. Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

"Freestanding facilities" are often homes in neighborhoods. That's exactly what it means. I'm not sure why you're reading it to mean otherwise.

The company that owns these facilities owns health clinics sited in more appropriate locations. Their business development approach is pivoting to neighborhoods AND strategically conflicting out area land use lawyers so HOAs essentially can’t hire a lawyer. The company was recently fined in excess of $300k by the Feds for HIPAA violations.

It’s a money-making venture, not a nonprofit. And having 16+ people with acute addiction and/or mental health issues on the other side of a chain link fence where Elementary school kids play shouldn’t be allowed.

This is Brookeville. You can drive 5 minutes up the road and be on farmland or fields. Why should it be allowed next to a school?

FTR, it’s not “near” the school; it literally shares a property line with the playground.

Given that you either lied, or are uneducated enough about these facilities to think that "freestanding facilities" isn't a term for homes in residential neighborhoods, why should we assume that the rest of what you wrote is accurate?

I am unclear if this is a program for people with addiction, or for people with mental illness, or for people with dual diagnosis, but there really aren't programs that are and/or like you describe. Without an accurate understanding of who is living there it's hard to comment on whether it should be near a school. However, the norm for programs like this is to have them in neighborhoods so that people are learning the skills they need in the kind of setting where they will need them. Sending people off to be on some field isn't a reasonable solution.

?

There are houses on acreage/fields rather than situated on a small cul-de-sac between SFHs backing up to a school playground. In fact, you can find them along Georgia Avenue and New Hampshire Ave just minutes away from these project.

A 16+ person (plus staff) residential treatment facility is too big to be shoehorned into a neighborhood with small SFHs.

You can google the info about the company that is developing the project.

You can google about how the company lied to the sellers when they purchased the homes.

And there are 2 recent news stories about this.

I don't disagree with you in theory, but as an advocacy campaign this needs some work.

First of all, lose the talking points about property values. That's muddying the waters and making it look like student safety is an afterthought rather than the point of the campaign.

Second, focus on this case as an example of the needs for better laws county-wide. As the law stands, this company is absolutely within its legal rights to be where it is. So the point is to change the zoning/regulations, not just to "save" this one elementary school.

Third, why are you listing BoE as decision-makers? Is the theory of change that you could get them to pressure the County? That's a dicey proposition, as there is not really any love lost between BoE and County Council.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

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. Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

"Freestanding facilities" are often homes in neighborhoods. That's exactly what it means. I'm not sure why you're reading it to mean otherwise.

The company that owns these facilities owns health clinics sited in more appropriate locations. Their business development approach is pivoting to neighborhoods AND strategically conflicting out area land use lawyers so HOAs essentially can’t hire a lawyer. The company was recently fined in excess of $300k by the Feds for HIPAA violations.

It’s a money-making venture, not a nonprofit. And having 16+ people with acute addiction and/or mental health issues on the other side of a chain link fence where Elementary school kids play shouldn’t be allowed.

This is Brookeville. You can drive 5 minutes up the road and be on farmland or fields. Why should it be allowed next to a school?

FTR, it’s not “near” the school; it literally shares a property line with the playground.

Given that you either lied, or are uneducated enough about these facilities to think that "freestanding facilities" isn't a term for homes in residential neighborhoods, why should we assume that the rest of what you wrote is accurate?

I am unclear if this is a program for people with addiction, or for people with mental illness, or for people with dual diagnosis, but there really aren't programs that are and/or like you describe. Without an accurate understanding of who is living there it's hard to comment on whether it should be near a school. However, the norm for programs like this is to have them in neighborhoods so that people are learning the skills they need in the kind of setting where they will need them. Sending people off to be on some field isn't a reasonable solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

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. Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

"Freestanding facilities" are often homes in neighborhoods. That's exactly what it means. I'm not sure why you're reading it to mean otherwise.

The company that owns these facilities owns health clinics sited in more appropriate locations. Their business development approach is pivoting to neighborhoods AND strategically conflicting out area land use lawyers so HOAs essentially can’t hire a lawyer. The company was recently fined in excess of $300k by the Feds for HIPAA violations.

It’s a money-making venture, not a nonprofit. And having 16+ people with acute addiction and/or mental health issues on the other side of a chain link fence where Elementary school kids play shouldn’t be allowed.

This is Brookeville. You can drive 5 minutes up the road and be on farmland or fields. Why should it be allowed next to a school?

FTR, it’s not “near” the school; it literally shares a property line with the playground.

Anonymous wrote:
At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

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. Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

"Freestanding facilities" are often homes in neighborhoods. That's exactly what it means. I'm not sure why you're reading it to mean otherwise.

At the PTA meeting we were informed that the facility will be a level 3.5 treatment facility: Clinically Managed High-Intensity Residential Services.

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. Treatment services are provided by an interdisciplinary team, and onsite physicians are available but not required for phone or in-person consultation. Level 3.5 care typically takes place in freestanding facilities or specialty units of healthcare facilities (read: not in neighborhood homes).

https://www.change.org/p/no-to-drug-alcohol-rehabilitation-next-to-greenwood-elementary-school?recruiter=312171557&recruited_by_id=8b36d320-0c93-11e5-b7de-33e95d9b89f9&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard&utm_medium=copylinkrmr

A Florida-based for-profit company purchased 2 houses that border Greenwood Elementary’s playground and they intend to operate a Level 3.5 residential treatment program for 16+ people with addiction and/or mental health issues.

The properties are on a residential cul-de-sac between SFHs on small plots and the property shares a chain link fence with the playground.

You can google what a Level 3.5 facility means, but the big takeaway is that it’s for people who lack impulse control.

While I’m sure most can agree that treatment facilities are needed, the key issue here is the location.

This shouldn’t be allowed to be placed against the school playground. And it shouldn’t be allowed on a neighborhood street.

We have been told that these business ventures are popping up in our county. Your school or neighborhood could be next. Please sign the petition, contact the superintendent, and voice your concerns to the county council.