Prevent Clinical Businesses from Penetrating and Exploiting Residential Neighborhoods
As the California legislature continues to dictate how residential zoning will appear vastly different in the future, Advocates for Responsible Treatment advocates for the original concept of permanent, residential neighborhoods. Permanent residential neighborhoods, crafted from single-family zoning and largely found in suburban and rural areas, were intended to create stable community bases around which local jurisdictions would coalesce. Permanent residential neighborhoods nurture community experiences, such as religious institutions, schools, sporting activities, parks, small retail businesses, and holiday events. They give rise to local representation, which handles many issues with which the state legislature is unable to deal.
Nevertheless, the state of California, while possibly well-intentioned, is intent on providing more and more commercial clinical services in residential neighborhoods. With every additional para-medical service piled on top of non-medical addiction treatment on residential properties, the state makes more and more obvious that its declaration that such properties are a "residential use" is simply a facade for businesses exploiting an arbitrage: operating for-profit, transient lodging in the heart of residential neighborhoods. The most recent bill that passed the State Legislature was one that allows medical doctors to provide "Incidental Medical Services" in licensed recovery housing. Essentially, in ensuring such services are provided, the state is acknowledging that addicts recovering in such housing are in need of medical support, and medical professionals are engaged in business practices on such properties. Patients belong in a clinical setting, which would be designed from start to finish to be much safer.
California has taken two more steps in this direction. As it has become increasingly obvious that Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) prevents deaths, the state has just begun to consider what it means for an addict to live in a "sober" environment while taking prescribed opioid substitutes. In addition, in its zeal to ensure that recovering addicts who relapse are not kicked out and become homeless, legislators have proposed that houses have a plan for what to do with relapsed addicts, which includes the potential for keeping them in the house where they were identified to have relapsed. In short, the state continues to muddle through the concept of state-sanctioned, active drug use on commercial properties in residential neighborhoods.
To be clear, addicts and recovering addicts have a right to live in and already live in all neighborhoods. Up to six unrelated, recovering addicts have a right to live together and be considered a family under California law in municipal zones designated for families. The issue is whether businesses should be allowed to operate short-term housing, providing concierge or para-medical services, in single-family designated zones intended for permanent residents or whether those more appropriately belong in commercial zones with higher levels of care.
Nevertheless, the state of California, while possibly well-intentioned, is intent on providing more and more commercial clinical services in residential neighborhoods. With every additional para-medical service piled on top of non-medical addiction treatment on residential properties, the state makes more and more obvious that its declaration that such properties are a "residential use" is simply a facade for businesses exploiting an arbitrage: operating for-profit, transient lodging in the heart of residential neighborhoods. The most recent bill that passed the State Legislature was one that allows medical doctors to provide "Incidental Medical Services" in licensed recovery housing. Essentially, in ensuring such services are provided, the state is acknowledging that addicts recovering in such housing are in need of medical support, and medical professionals are engaged in business practices on such properties. Patients belong in a clinical setting, which would be designed from start to finish to be much safer.
California has taken two more steps in this direction. As it has become increasingly obvious that Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) prevents deaths, the state has just begun to consider what it means for an addict to live in a "sober" environment while taking prescribed opioid substitutes. In addition, in its zeal to ensure that recovering addicts who relapse are not kicked out and become homeless, legislators have proposed that houses have a plan for what to do with relapsed addicts, which includes the potential for keeping them in the house where they were identified to have relapsed. In short, the state continues to muddle through the concept of state-sanctioned, active drug use on commercial properties in residential neighborhoods.
To be clear, addicts and recovering addicts have a right to live in and already live in all neighborhoods. Up to six unrelated, recovering addicts have a right to live together and be considered a family under California law in municipal zones designated for families. The issue is whether businesses should be allowed to operate short-term housing, providing concierge or para-medical services, in single-family designated zones intended for permanent residents or whether those more appropriately belong in commercial zones with higher levels of care.