Residential Recovery: How Neighbors Experience It
Residences for addiction recovery lie along a spectrum, and Recovering Addicts may start or stop anywhere along the spectrum or continue along it. At one end of the spectrum, for those who will face the greatest challenge in regaining their sobriety, licensed detoxification is offered in residential neighborhoods. In the second stage of Residential Recovery, Supervised Recovery, tenants living in a residential neighborhood have active contracts for outpatient treatment, usually in a Treatment Center, sometimes in a hospital. The patient pays for some kind of supervision while they are at the residence and in more public spaces, to reduce the likelihood of relapse. Typically, that supervision includes managing the tenant's schedule and providing meals and transportation.
Both Detox and Supervised Recovery housing are often described by the Recovery Industry, State Government, the media and our representatives as "Sober Living Homes." Unfortunately, this is a misnomer, as these are not "homes." Occupants rarely stay for more than 90 days. They do not make the address their permanent address for tax purposes, drivers' license, bills, etc. They do not pick out curtains and bedspreads for their rooms and do not contribute to the decoration of common areas. They almost never select the property where they live, but are placed there by the businesses. The only features they have in common with true, Independent, Cooperative Sober Living HOMES are the intent to provide a sober environment and occupants recovering from addiction. Most of the issues neighbors have with Residential Recovery have nothing to do with the occupants or their disability but are caused and aggravated by the businesses that operate short term boarding houses... in neighborhoods where most of the owners are resident and have 15 or 30-year mortgages. The municipal codes for most suburban neighborhoods prohibit the operation of boarding houses in single-family, 6-and-under neighborhoods. California's State Health Code has overridden municipal codes by requiring these properties not be treated as boarding houses, even if they are!
Independent, Cooperative Sober Living Homes are potentially the last stage of recovery before a Recovering Addict moves completely on with their life. These may be up to 6 people renting beds/rooms in a home where they share authority over common areas and services. Each tenant lives independently, manages their own schedule, and finds their own transportation.
Residential Recovery (Detox and Supervised Recovery) SHOULD be classified as a form of Residential Care, but the State Legislature has created a special category for it. Other forms of Residential Care in California include care for the elderly and for the cognitively disabled. Almost all other forms of Residential Care are long term, and tenants live in their homes for many months or years.
Both Detox and Supervised Recovery housing are often described by the Recovery Industry, State Government, the media and our representatives as "Sober Living Homes." Unfortunately, this is a misnomer, as these are not "homes." Occupants rarely stay for more than 90 days. They do not make the address their permanent address for tax purposes, drivers' license, bills, etc. They do not pick out curtains and bedspreads for their rooms and do not contribute to the decoration of common areas. They almost never select the property where they live, but are placed there by the businesses. The only features they have in common with true, Independent, Cooperative Sober Living HOMES are the intent to provide a sober environment and occupants recovering from addiction. Most of the issues neighbors have with Residential Recovery have nothing to do with the occupants or their disability but are caused and aggravated by the businesses that operate short term boarding houses... in neighborhoods where most of the owners are resident and have 15 or 30-year mortgages. The municipal codes for most suburban neighborhoods prohibit the operation of boarding houses in single-family, 6-and-under neighborhoods. California's State Health Code has overridden municipal codes by requiring these properties not be treated as boarding houses, even if they are!
Independent, Cooperative Sober Living Homes are potentially the last stage of recovery before a Recovering Addict moves completely on with their life. These may be up to 6 people renting beds/rooms in a home where they share authority over common areas and services. Each tenant lives independently, manages their own schedule, and finds their own transportation.
Residential Recovery (Detox and Supervised Recovery) SHOULD be classified as a form of Residential Care, but the State Legislature has created a special category for it. Other forms of Residential Care in California include care for the elderly and for the cognitively disabled. Almost all other forms of Residential Care are long term, and tenants live in their homes for many months or years.
Let's face it: neighbors aren't stupid. People who have a choice of where they live, and wish to live there for years, select residential neighborhoods based on desirable attributes of the neighborhood. Long term owners have an incentive to ensure their property generally conforms with the qualities of the neighborhood on average; they mostly maintain reasonable relationships with neighbors; they become part of the community, participating in religious institutions, schools, nonprofits and local businesses.
In contrast, landlords are less interested in the qualities of the neighborhood, and the care and attention given to an investment property vs. the care given to a home is fundamentally different. Short-term, Residential Recovery occupancy takes this a step further; it is like a black hole, sucking the neighborhood and community interest out of a property. First, the occupants do not choose their neighborhood or house; they are placed there. Thus, the specific neighborhood and its qualities are not a factor in which the occupants are invested. Second, because the occupants are short-term, they are not invested in whether relationships with neighbors are good or bad. Third, neither the landlords nor the occupants care about the qualities of the neighborhood or contributing to the community because they do not experience the neighborhood other than to drive through it. In short, neighbors recognize that a landlord operating Residential Recovery is exploiting the unique opportunity offered by the State without contributing back to the neighborhood at the same rate a resident home-owner would, and altering the character of the neighborhood as well, shifting it from one that is invested in community to one of, at best, indifference. At worst, the Residential Recovery landlord operates a house in a manner that may disturb the neighborhood and at the same time harm the very occupants he is supposed to help.
If the State granted wholesale licenses for fraternities to operate in residential neighborhoods, neighbors would have similar reasons to be concerned. Indeed, given the excessive rights the State has granted to Residential Recovery operators, it is apparent that it is a hop, skip and a jump before the State will allow other businesses, including prisons and hospitals, and even hotels, to operate short-term housing in permanent residential neighborhoods as well.
In contrast, landlords are less interested in the qualities of the neighborhood, and the care and attention given to an investment property vs. the care given to a home is fundamentally different. Short-term, Residential Recovery occupancy takes this a step further; it is like a black hole, sucking the neighborhood and community interest out of a property. First, the occupants do not choose their neighborhood or house; they are placed there. Thus, the specific neighborhood and its qualities are not a factor in which the occupants are invested. Second, because the occupants are short-term, they are not invested in whether relationships with neighbors are good or bad. Third, neither the landlords nor the occupants care about the qualities of the neighborhood or contributing to the community because they do not experience the neighborhood other than to drive through it. In short, neighbors recognize that a landlord operating Residential Recovery is exploiting the unique opportunity offered by the State without contributing back to the neighborhood at the same rate a resident home-owner would, and altering the character of the neighborhood as well, shifting it from one that is invested in community to one of, at best, indifference. At worst, the Residential Recovery landlord operates a house in a manner that may disturb the neighborhood and at the same time harm the very occupants he is supposed to help.
If the State granted wholesale licenses for fraternities to operate in residential neighborhoods, neighbors would have similar reasons to be concerned. Indeed, given the excessive rights the State has granted to Residential Recovery operators, it is apparent that it is a hop, skip and a jump before the State will allow other businesses, including prisons and hospitals, and even hotels, to operate short-term housing in permanent residential neighborhoods as well.