Monthly Archive for October, 2006

I have received two reponses from Suja Lowenthal’s office today. One directly and one through a neighbor that forwarded the link to my open letter post to a staff member. One response points out that these facilities are either regulated by the state, or are not regulated and viewed like homes of large families, groups of friends or college students. The response also points out that research has to be done to determine which category the establishment next door falls under. Let me point out some of the information that I found:

1. The facility next door is listed on a State of California facility directory: LA County Treatment Provider Listing (PDF) look at Provider ID 100077.
2. The facility, all 3 units, is listed in another directory: Licensing and Certification Branch Directory (PDF) see the last entry on page 61 and the first two entries on page 62.

This indicates that the facility is somehow regulated by the State. Let me make a couple of points to ponder:

1. If this is a regulated facility, I would think it would be in the State’s and the City’s best interest to ensure that appropriate staffing levels are maintained. What type of staff is mandated by the State for a facility of this type.
2. Does Long Beach have any gang injunction zones? If so, can they be used to limit the number of known gang members in a treatment facility or to limit location of the facilities.
3. There are laws that limit the locations of College Fraternity houses in Long Beach (at least that was what I was once told), are these laws general enough to allow them to be used to regulate placement and capacity of these facilities?
4. Are they any laws on the books that can be applied to residences that limit the number of residents per bedroom or per square foot? If so, does 6 residents in a 1000 sq ft dwelling break the rules?

I am going to send the link to this story to the staff member that contacted me directly. I am also going to request his permission to post his response in its entirety. I think it is important to get as much information out in the open as possible.

-Josh

Last Sunday, I sent an email to my city council person, Suja Lowenthal, documenting the trials and tribulations of living next door to a sober living facility. I have waited for a response, but apparently this is not a big issue to my directly elected representative in the Long Beach City Council. I am now posting the letter I sent here, effectively turning it into an open letter to the city council.

Dear Suja and staff,

My wife and I live at 1411 E 9th Street in the 2nd District. We are next door to 1417 E 9th Street which is home to a residential treatment facility operated by Atlantic Recovery Services. From my understanding, based on conversations that I have had with the staff and management, this is just short of a lock-down facility. The residents are not to leave the property unless going to an approved function – an AA meeting or event, school or work. The staff provides transportation to and from these functions. All of the residents in this facility are supposed to be under the age of 21. Most, if not all, of the residents are in the program as a condition of their probation.

Yesterday, Saturday Oct. 7, I observed two of the residents returning from a trip to the liquor store. The reason that I noticed is that they jumped over the fence from the alley into the back of the Atlantic Recovery property. I noticed that one of the kids was carrying a black plastic bag that contained bottles. Being conscientious of the Atlantic Recovery program goals, I advised one of the staff members of what I had seen. After a trip to the local liquor stores (there are at least 4 on 10th street between Orange and Walnut) a staff member returned after identifying where the resident purchased the alcohol and questioned me again. About an hour later, he returned with a probation officer and had me once again repeat my story. I was informed that the two residents were being kicked out and would likely be returning to jail. Later in the afternoon, another resident yelled out a window and called me names, including “snitch” and another word that rhymes very well with snitch.

The Atlantic Recovery treatment facility has been at this location for almost two years. During this time, we have observed many things that create problems in the neighborhood:
- Several residents have been kicked out of the program for leaving the residence and returning high or drunk.
- There is a quick turn-over in the counseling staff. What consistency of treatment can occur when the staff rotates out quickly?
- While we try to work with the staff on the noise, it still remains a problem. They are allowed to have up to 18 residents at this location because there is a two bedroom house and two (2) bedroom apartments and they are allowed 3 residents per room. The residents create a large amount of noise just outside of the times that the existing noise ordinance covers. This means that at 7am every day there are a lot of extremely loud voices yelling and screaming just outside our bedroom window.
- The residents rotate through quickly. What kind of benefit does this transience have for our neighborhood? Other residents on our street have been here for 30+ years and there is typically not a high turnover among the few renters on our street.
- There is frequent fighting among the residents.
- From my understanding of the State laws that cover the administration of these facilities, there is supposed to be one counselor for every six residents. From my observations, this ratio is not enforced.
- There is parking for 4 vehicles in the rear of the property, yet the staff park their vehicles on the street using up parking that is already scarce.
- The staff parks the unmarked company van in the driveway so that it blocks the sidewalk.
- One of the ‘graduates’ of the Atlantic Recovery program returned to the house and stole a TV, PlayStation2 game console and several other items. The staff was informed of the identity of the thief by his step-mother.

I am also concerned about the addition of the “Choice’s” recovery center at the North-East corner of 10th Street and Walnut Avenue. While it appears that whoever runs this facility has done a very nice job fixing up the exterior of the property, I am concerned that its proximity (just across the street) to a small market that sells alcohol is potential problem.

It does not seem to be good public policy to allow a high
concentration (and yes, I do think that more than 2 locations in a 1 mile radius is a high concentration) of residential treatment facilities in an area with a high crime rate and easy access to drugs and alcohol.

I have lived in this neighborhood for over twenty years myself. I feel that this area suffers from a high number of residential treatment facilities due to the low property prices in this part of Long Beach. An economically disenfranchised area should not be allowed to have a disproportionately high number of treatment facilities. It is a disservice to the residents, especially those that are recent immigrants that lack the ability and confidence in government to speak out about such matters.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns.

Regards,
Joshua Legbandt

Since I sent this letter, I have also noted that there are a total of 7 liquor stores on 10th Street in the 1/2 mile between Alamitos Avenue and Walnut Avenue. I’ve also been told by friends in the Craftsman Village Historic District that there is a treatment facility on Walnut Avenue just North of 8th Street and two houses on the North side of 7th Street between Walnut Ave. and St. Louis Ave. that appear to violate the maximum occupancy for residential treatment facilities.

I’ve also been informed of a Supreme Court decision that bans restrictions on residential treatment programs. I will be searching for that decision and will post information here.