Personal care homes

[jim baird]

Since we appear to have a number of zoning warriors among us, I'd like to hear from the august body re "personal care homes".

We have a big corporation that provides in-home care to a variety of persons with an array of disabilities.

In our town an incident occurred that is very close to one that happened in a neighboring city, as below:

http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/091709/new_493952541.shtml

My phone call to the community protection chief there found that the company moved the remaining client out of the county, letting him and his local authorities off the hook so to speak.

He went on to say that his city's lawyers advised him not to fight a zoning battle over the type of use.

It is one facet of the changing status of healthcare, especially of mental healthcare, as governments used to house the unstable in institutions, but now more and more are farming out their care to private companies and placing the disabled among the community at large.

 

[Mule]

Texas passed a bill that a city cannot regulate where a "group home" can be located. A group home may be located in ANY residential district.

A group home must meet the definition of family home; it must have six or fewer persons with disabilities and no more than two staff. The family home must be operated by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR), a community center, a non- profit corporation, or an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF-MR) to be protected by this Act.

 

[Coug Dad]

ILLINOIS TOWN WILL ISSUE PERMIT FOR GROUP HOME FOR DISABLED ADULTS

On December 13, 2006, a federal court in Chicago approved a settlement of the Department’s lawsuit against the Village of South Elgin, Illinois, alleging discrimination against people with disabilities. The Department’s complaint alleged that the village violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing a permit to allow Unity House, Inc., to operate a home for seven residents recovering from addictions to drugs and alcohol.

Under the settlement, the village must allow Unity House to operate with up to seven residents recovering from drug or alcohol addiction. The settlement also requires the village to pay a total of $25,000 in damages to Unity House, $7,500 each to two residents who were not able to live in the home when the permit was denied, and $15,000 to the United States as a civil penalty. The settlement also requires village officials and employees to receive training on the Fair Housing Act and requires the village to keep and maintain records for the next three years relating to other zoning and land use requests regarding homes for people with disabilities.

Unity House is a group home for people recovering from alcohol or drug dependency. Under the Fair Housing Act, people recovering from drug or alcohol addiction are protected from discrimination in housing because they are recovering from addiction. People who are currently using illegal drugs are not protected by the disability provisions of the Fair Housing Act.

 

[jim baird]

Thanks for the replies.

Our Council and their lawyer want to take this situation to Superior Court for injunctive relief or something, as the neighbors feel so threatened.

I'm not such a gung-ho soldier in this.

 

[Yankee]

He went on to say that his city's lawyers advised him not to fight a zoning battle over the type of use.

The FHA is pretty strong with this type of thing. I'd agree with the above unless you have a Use that is clearly out of the definitions. Fact is, you can't zone out "crazies" and people under the care of staff probably aren't any worse than the normal yet un-known "crazies". The only restriction I know of is the child molester registry.

 

[Jobsaver]

Thanks for the replies.Our Council and their lawyer want to take this situation to Superior Court for injunctive relief or something, as the neighbors feel so threatened.

I'm not such a gung-ho soldier in this.

I am not such a gung-ho soldier in this either. Is the incident posted (assault/attempted rape) especially related to the zoning issue? I do not believe one can zone out crime, even if it possibly results from mental illness or other medical incapacities. It could just as well have been a family member being cared for by another family member. Where will we draw the line?

 

[jim baird]

Care provider (big corporation) says the state directed it to seek rezone for conditional use as personal care home (two or more residents) even though their claim is that only one resident ever occupied the dwelling. I advised them of application process, but application was never submitted until incident occurred. (Resident attacked and injured two caregivers) I issued order to vacate under non-permitted use. Care provider said state changed status of care to "home care provider", which is street legal. Neighbors claim that during the course of occupancy, more than one resident was housed there, creating the use violation, now history. The danger, however, they say, remains.

It looks to me like a long shot for City lawyer.

 

[Jobsaver]

The article indicates that at least four "home care provider" personnel were on the scene at the time of the incident. This seems like a lot of personnel for one resident.

 

[jim baird]

The newspaper story is about a duplex, where one resident occupied each side, each with two attendants.

Question: If four caregivers rushed to aid of the attacked, that means they abandoned their post on the other resident, who could have escaped as well and attacked yet another neighbor?

 

[Jobsaver]

"Four staff members from Tiegreen's home also helped." The article is misleading.

It is true that the other resident could attack yet another neighbor. But, I think it is just as true that any mere neighbor could attack yet another neighbor.

I still do not think zoning enforcement an effective means to address this circumstance. It can be debated that the first two occasions of caregiver attacks should have been reported to the police.

Is it mandatory to report such attacks. What happens in the circumstance of housing a violent patient in a hospital or nursing home. At what point is a violent patient, or any other violent member of society required to be institutionalized.

 

[Yankee]

The newspaper story is about a duplex, where one resident occupied each side, each with two attendants.Question: If four caregivers rushed to aid of the attacked, that means they abandoned their post on the other resident, who could have escaped as well and attacked yet another neighbor?

These people don't "escape" because they are not under restraint, house arrest or any such thing. They have individual rights and freedoms just like every one of us or they wouldn't be eligible to be placed in these homes. AS YOU ALL KNOW someone under physical restraint is in a commercial building with much different code requirements than a single family dwelling.

This is the kind of assumption and speculation that runs rampant in these neighborhoods and do we really need to fall into the same trap on this board? Huh?

 

[jim baird]

If a person has a history of violence, does that affect his right to Fair Housing as one disabled? Maybe he will lose his eligibility as a result. Public safety vs. individual rights is the crux of this biscuit.

BTW, police call and response was what precipitated the zoning issue. As yet do not know why there was no arrest, but the attacker was driven 100 miles by the responding officer to the nearest facility deemed appropriate.

 

[Yankee]

Correct, if he/she looses the right/ability to remain in a community home residence based on behavior then that is a separate issue.

"Normal" people lose that right also (it's called jail) and it happens on a regular basis. Come to think of it, many of those people are still out and about in neighborhoods.

The issue is there are many people who fall into the community home type category that are not violent and they are being lumped in with the few that have done a violent act.

 

[Jobsaver]

BTW, police call and response was what precipitated the zoning issue. As yet do not know why there was no arrest, but the attacker was driven 100 miles by the responding officer to the nearest facility deemed appropriate.

This is exactly what should happen.

This thread is interesting. And the topic will increasingly have bearing on our jobs with our aging population and health care system. The patient in this example should be institutionalized. Any entity holding power-of-attorney over his affairs should be notified, and, in my opinion, receive a warning citation, if not an actual citation.

Yankee is correct that this is a criminal matter, but it may be more complicated because of real incapacities. Also, there should be a law requiring all health care workers, particularly when established in residential environments, to report assault and other violent crimes directly to law enforcement agencies.

 

[brudgers]

Texas passed a bill that a city cannot regulate where a "group home" can be located. A group home may be located in ANY residential district.A group home must meet the definition of family home; it must have six or fewer persons with disabilities and no more than two staff. The family home must be operated by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR), a community center, a non- profit corporation, or an Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF-MR) to be protected by this Act.

The law is based on Federal regulations.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/final8_1.php

 

[Jobsaver]

The law is based on Federal regulations.

"The Fair Housing Act affords no protections to individuals with or without disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. Determining whether someone poses such a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis, however, and cannot be based on general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability."

Who has the authority to make this determination? The medical profession? The police? A judge?

If it is a medical professional, then the fox is in the henhouse because of an inherent conflict of interest to please the healthcare corporation.

 

[jim baird]

I appreciate the comments.

Latest: City lawyer wants me to assemble the documentary record (tho he has been briefed right along). He's taking my pile and that from the police to take the care company to court. I don't yet know what his angle is, or just what he seeks, but the company has 40K employees and likely few six-packs of lawyers.

 

[Yankee]

"The Fair Housing Act affords no protections to individuals with or without disabilities who present a direct threat to the persons or property of others. Determining whether someone poses such a direct threat must be made on an individualized basis, however, and cannot be based on general assumptions or speculation about the nature of a disability."Who has the authority to make this determination? The medical profession? The police? A judge?

If it is a medical professional, then the fox is in the henhouse because of an inherent conflict of interest to please the healthcare corporation.

I believe you are mistaken about the conflict of interest. A group home is the care which cost the LEAST, as soon as the disabled person is assigned to another facility that deals with behavior that is not appropriate for a community home situation, the "healthcare corporation" gets to charge a lot more.

 

[Jobsaver]

Hmm! You make a good point Yankee.

The city against the corporation. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Keep those documents handy. The City Attorney will ask you for another copy everytime he needs a new set. (Some can't be bothered with mundane chores such as maintaining a file).

 

[TJacobs]

Zoning can't be used to keep them out, but nothing says they don't have to comply like everyone else.

 

[jim baird]

Keep those documents handy. The City Attorney will ask you for another copy everytime he needs a new set. (Some can't be bothered with mundane chores such as maintaining a file).

Thanks for your support JS. I'm on it!

 

[peach]

I'm not so sure, that absent a court order, you can take it upon yourself to deem someone incompetent or unable to care for themselves. It's zoning or legal.. but not a code issue... get yourself out of the middle.

 

[jim baird]

Peach,

Action I took was based on zoning, but the company has shown me it is "street legal", ergo off hook, but lawyer is concerned about the danger the occupant presents to the 'hood, especially with his history of violent behavior.

I have bundled the info I gathered and handed the ball off to him. BTW my bundle included references shared on this thread. Thanks all.

 

[Yankee]

Again, the "history of violent behavior" is not a code issue.