Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I am more concerned with physical violence between students at the schools” -Dawn Ludke

Unbelievable.

She couldn’t care less about the students or the voters who live Nextdoor.

This county council lacks commonsense and prioritizes developers/businesses (like this Florida-based business) over residents and kids.

She doesn’t care. She said she’s highly employable.

What does that mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I am more concerned with physical violence between students at the schools” -Dawn Ludke

Unbelievable.

She couldn’t care less about the students or the voters who live Nextdoor.

This county council lacks commonsense and prioritizes developers/businesses (like this Florida-based business) over residents and kids.

She doesn’t care. She said she’s highly employable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“I am more concerned with physical violence between students at the schools” -Dawn Ludke

Unbelievable.

She couldn’t care less about the students or the voters who live Nextdoor.

This county council lacks commonsense and prioritizes developers/businesses (like this Florida-based business) over residents and kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I mean, it's 16 people across two homes. So eight people in recovery. I probably have eight people with active substance abuse disorders (including alcohol abuse) within a couple blocks of me, and they aren't even in recovery.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Anonymous wrote:“I am more concerned with physical violence between students at the schools” -Dawn Ludke

Anonymous wrote:Dawn Ludeke is being condescending and comabative at the meeting. She is came in ready to be rude. She’s talking to the parents like they were 2 year olds.

It’s basically a meeting to tell us that it’s all done and there is nothing anyone can do.

Anonymous wrote:

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.