Monday, May 9, 2016

Sober Living Homes: Now Targeting Sierra Madre

First one, then many.
The situation could get very ugly, you know. There really is a lot of dough to be made, and there are also plenty of awful state and Federal laws carelessly enabling such destructive ends. Many of which are driven by unscrupulous individuals willing to exploit these things for their own greedy ends. Yes, it really is all about the money. It almost always is.

All done, of course, while also hypocritically claiming they're doing it to correct great societal wrongs. Despite all of the disingenuous guilt trips and hackneyed PC claptrap, Sierra Madre represents little more to these folks than a great opportunity to accumulate a lot of cash. Just as it is in so many other similar towns.

What really is at stake here is the right of residents of communities such as this to maintain places that are safe for families and their kids. People work very hard to achieve residency in places like Sierra Madre, and the possibility of having their life's work put in harm's way by stupid and at times corrupt big government policies is a lot for many to accept.

Some have begun to wonder what their rights are, or even if they have any left. Why it is that these people have been singled out? Haven't they always carefully followed the rules, and done all of the right things?

Federal and state government policies that are at war with suburban communities like Sierra Madre really do exist. This isn't a conspiracy theory, or unfounded fears cooked up to promote somebody's pet ideologies. It is actual fact. And as such it has also become a political issue in this country.

This following article from The New York Post being a good example of Federal policies gone berserk, and the political implications.


To read the rest of this NY Post article click here.

So what is the solution to many of this nation's ills? At least according to Washington DC, the answer is move all urban afflictions into the suburbs. Be it the chronically impoverished, crime, drug addiction, or even convicted child molesters, all of these things are somehow made better when they are moved next door to someone just like you. Or even, perhaps, your kid's schools.

And what if you have a problem with any of their social engineering? Then perhaps you are a hateful person who really doesn't deserve all of the nice things you have.

Trust me, they can be taken away.

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

87 comments:

  1. Its hard to know what to say about all this. Regarding the group homes, if one moves in next door to you, your home just became worthless. I don't care how nice your home is, show me a family with kids that would buy a home next door to one of these things. It ain't going to happen. Ask yourself, would you buy next door and take a chance on that, of course not. Even if your home does sell, with a group home next door, you've probably removed about 90% of potential buyers right at the outset. And if i'm buying your home, you better disclose the existence of this material fact, otherwise, I'm suing you after the close of escrow. Putting values aside, what about the noise with too many people crammed into one of these houses - and that's probably the least of your worries. But why do you have to worry at all? Why is this bad policy still allowed to exist? Its because of apathy. As long as its not in your backyard, who cares. The only problem is that everyone is Sierra Madre is vulnerable to this. We need to talk to our representatives in Sacramento to change these laws.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a lot of things beyond our control that can make a home worthless:
      Think about the "subprime" crisis. Who was hurt most? Those who had skin in the game, made a 20% down payment and made their payments all the time, had lost the most, when their neighbors "bought" their houses with 0% down and occasional payments, bringing down the value of the entire neighborhood. The world is utterly unfair, no matter where you look at it. Plenty of people concluded that it was their fault to move in that area.
      Think about the water crisis, be it in Flint or here in California. With our leaking water pipes, we are particularly vulnerable to the pending water crisis. Even with the snow packs being somewhat better this year, the water shortage in California is not going away in the longer term that one usually associates with a mortgage.
      Think about those people who bought their houses in the last 10 years, at 200-250% of the "true" value.
      And then, there is the unsustainable CALPERS debt. Who is going to pay that? We - until the entire system collapses, like the Sowjet Union collapsed, with no penny left. This is all done on the back of the middle class, increasingly the upper middle class because there is nothing to be taken away from the lower classes. Do you think that this will have a positive effect on any home here in California?
      And there will be plenty of people who tell us: your fault. It was all over in the news. You should have seen it coming.
      If we have not made proper precautions, we wish the times back, when we had this problem.
      And Sacramento is not going to help us on this. I have no illusions about this. Neither should you.

      Delete
    2. 6:12, I've heard that it is actually illegal to disclose the existence of these homes to buyers, that realtors can be sued for discrimination if they say anything. It's a violation of the Americans with Disabilities protections (?)

      Delete
    3. It's a state to state requirement. Anyone know what the California rules are?

      Delete
    4. Mod and Tattlers, who can we contact in Sacramento? We need to do it now in an election year.

      Delete
    5. This is coming from the Federal level. Contact the US Surgeon General:
      http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/contactus/index.html

      Delete
  2. All I can say is elections have consequences. These are liberal democratic policies that are done in the name of "compassion" and without regard to the carnage they cause. What is this country coming to? If you work really hard for a long time and save your money to buy into a nice neighborhood, it won't make any difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is very frustrating that compassion is supposed to only go in one direction! And that there is a presumption that someone who lives in a nice home in a good neighborhood is living an easy life. That's a fantasy. Everyone has their struggles.

      Delete
    2. 9:30, you don't get victimhood - for a victim, his or her pain is far greater than anyone else's.

      Delete
    3. Yes 9:32!
      And not only do they have greater suffering than other people, they are never responsible for it.
      It is never their fault.
      And you have to make it up to them.

      Delete
  3. Things planned centrally from afar don't always turn out the way the govt planners thought they would when imposed locally.

    ReplyDelete
  4. if I lived next to one of these homes, I'd burn marijuana like candles and blow towards their windows

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will probably invite you in their home to drop that habit.

      Delete
    2. It would be friendly to also bake them brownies and other treats.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. Mean jokes! This problem is here & real. What would you really do?

      Delete
    5. Nothing, other than moving to an area that only has single family homes. Won't happen there, because it is much more attractive to establish them in the McMansion areas.

      Delete
    6. Ever heard of "eminent domain"?
      And remember: The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of "public use".

      Delete
  5. Please know that this is all done intentionally in the name of "fairness" and "equality". Instead of increasing opportunity for all so that they can improve their own lives, politicians, in search of votes and power, lower the bar and create a standard of control by the least common denominator. In their world, everyone is equal when we all survive on the lowest rung, well, all except for the politicians who control our lives. Is this really how you want to live and how you want your children to live?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair for a few, unfair for many.

      Delete
  6. Where are all of our trusted real estate agents? Won't this cut into their profits if houses sell for less or maybe not at all?
    Maybe they could spend some of that political power to help stop this, or are they just into fighting to help developers keep the building of McMansions rolling?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well said 7:12. We'll be equal in misery. Rather than creating enterprise zones or other things to improve some of these bad neighborhoods, instead we try to import those areas into the more affluent areas. All that does is create more strife. The group home is the classic example of a misguided policy that ends up hurting a lot of people in the name of "compassion". How about some compassion for the people who made the right choices in life and don't want to live next door to a bunch of people who made the wrong choices. This is not about "whether" to have group homes, its about "where" to have group homes. They can have a home but its a business and should be located in a commercial area and not an R-1 zone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I wish you folks would quit falling for the "compassion" line, it has nothing to do with that. It's all about the money, or the way that the state and federal governments dodge the expense of providing rehab facilities and foster care services. This de-institutionalization came about in the mid-60's along with a significant reduction in funding.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation

    To re-post my comment from last week:

    This "fair housing" tripe is just a ruse to dump tremendous numbers of people into residential areas where they're not a legal "problem" that requires funding. It's US public policy because the "war on drugs" has not only failed, but has created a massive underclass of people who are forced into substandard living arrangements funded with tax dollars and our so-called health industry because of involvement with proclaimed illegal substances. No government at any level can afford to "treat" all of these people who would otherwise be living their own lives if it weren't for the drug labels created by US policy. Therefore the impact of these policies gets officially dumped into the housing sector least able to protect itself, single-family residential.

    The eventual result of these policies will be to decimate communities that are largely residential because there won't be kids attending the local schools - the "homes" are full of rehab patients - there won't be local residents who are active in the community and the schools, there won't be community volunteers or residents active on the local commissions. Except for those who get something in return from their influence on these bodies.

    Being a resident and owning private property will become pointless as these institutional and political forces undermine community cohesion and self-determination. Once that happens the community will cease to exist as something that makes decisions that benefits its residents; it all goes to patronage, and it basically turns into the City of Bell, or the City of Industry.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Bell_scandal

    Which is tragic because that's the basis of law in our constitutional republic, the representation of local people invested in the common good. That's individual property owners who participate in their local institutions and have families that are part of the community. When it's all foreign investors and mini-institutions, they erode the community fabric until it collapses. We're near the tipping point now. We may simply go the way of Mexico or China where there's no actual rule of law because the government doesn't represent the residents, just the corporations, institutions and gangs. It's regression to primitive governance; all payola. No people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what bothers me the most; the lack of involvement in the neighborhood. The people who come to stay for a while to get over their "illness" won't have any inclination to participate in city functions or responsibilities. They are just here to use what we have and then leave. It's all take and no give.

      Delete
    2. Rehab hotel.

      Delete
    3. It's not the "clients" who are taking from the community, they aren't there by choice and they don't have much say about which group home they go to, it's all driven by insurance. It's the property owners who want to make a buck, and our government just hands it to them with minimal oversight. Absolute government abdication of responsibility to the residents living in single-family neighborhoods, which have to cope with the consequences and costs of having these facilities in their neighborhoods.

      Delete
    4. In the case on Carter, my understanding is that the property owner is getting $5,000 a month in rent, and the rehab operators charge $30,000 a month per client. I don't know this for a fact, but that's the word.

      Delete
    5. The reason that the rehab operators can charge that much is because the "clients" are legally forced to go there, and generally insurance covers the cost. It's a hell of a public-private business model. And the County makes a bundle off the deal, too because of supposed oversight of these homes that amount to an annual walk-through and a report telling the operators to clean the counters more often (I've looked up some reports)which the County is generously reimbursed for. Which is why LA County has so many of them.

      Here's a summary of the applicable laws for these facilities
      https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Policy-Advocacy-Section/Hot-Issues/Group-Homes/California-Land-Use-Laws-Related-to-Recovery-Facil

      Delete
    6. 10:24. Thank you for being honest that you don't know for a fact that they are making $30,000 per client per month. But I'd encourage us all to use our brains before we make postings like this. It just adds to the idiocy of the internet. Here's why that number doesn't make sense. If they have 6 clients, that means they are making $180,000 per month, or $2.16 million a year, less 60,000 in annual rent. Nearly $2 million profit per year doesn't make any sense. I think maybe you were thinking that maybe they charge each resident $5,000 a month time 6 residents equals maximum gross revenue of $30,000 a month less costs -- rent, staff, etc. In short, I think reason suggests that IF they are full, they are profitable, but not at a $2 million per year clip. Probably only 5 figures, because all beds won't be full at all times, and they still have expenses even if it is only half full.

      Delete
    7. There is a lot of fear here, and that is understandable.

      I walked by the house yesterday to check out any possible horror scenarios. It was all quiet, just like any other home in the neighborhood.

      Delete
    8. Good 1:38. So I take it that you would be happy to cover for any property value losses the neighbors might incur, or any criminal activity that comes about as a result of the association with addicts and their familiarity with the area? That will make everyone feel a lot better.

      Delete
    9. 1:00, and you have certainty in those numbers because why?

      Delete
    10. The question is not about how quiet it is, or how it appears to you as you stroll by, but the appropriateness of putting a drug addict recovery business in the middle of a single family neighborhood.
      Honestly, you wouldn't mind having that move in next door to your family?

      Delete
    11. As a society that embraces capitalism like no other country, we always go for the highest bidder, when it comes to selling our homes. We do not care about our former neighbors enough to sell our homes for less profit, if we can get more. Why should we? We will not be part of that community anymore anyways. We also don't look whether the foreign investor/neighbor could bring their money legally in the country or not. Pecunia non olet. As long as it supposedly increases the value of our homes, we are OK with it. We believe in the free market - unless we may be negatively affected by it, then we seek government protection.

      Delete
    12. Why is it that all who posted about Dedicato can only find negatives but I have yet to hear how you have been affected? Not one of you can say what HORRIBLE thing was done to you as a result of Dedicato being in SIERRA MADRE.. Please post something credible not a bunch of fear driven contrived assumptions!

      Delete
    13. I have a question for you. If you don't like what you've read here, why do you hang around? Go read something else.

      Delete
  9. All you Obama and Hillary supporters, you're getting what you voted for. In the meantime, the rest of the country must pay for your stupidly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You reap what you sow. What are the local politicians going to actually do about this issue?

      Delete
    2. Avoid it until they can't do that anymore, then kick the can into a time when they are no longer in office.

      Delete
    3. Don't kid yourself 8:12. The Republicans are now in no condition to help, either.

      Delete
    4. This is O's and Hilarie's way to punish those who have succeeded despite government. It is payback to the successful and reward for those who suckle the government teat for their existence.

      Delete
    5. Yes, 8:12, don't you just long for the good old days. You know, like the golden years of Bush the Lesser, when our exalted leader couldn't be bothered to read reports of an imminent terrorist attack, lied about weapons of mass destruction, engaged in several foolish wars, and presided over the biggest economic collapse in 70 years. Those were the days.

      Delete
    6. Can you say "Agenda 21"?

      Delete
    7. What is it that some people don't like about President Obama? Hmm, can't quite figure it out. What issssss it about him?

      Delete
    8. So you think that President Obama and Secretary Clinton try to punish success, 11:22? Is that what you really believe? Perhaps a local rehab facility is a good thing--anyone who harbors such beliefs must be on something.

      And by the way folks, it's PRESIDENT Obama.

      Delete
    9. He is actually kind of popular right now, 6:05. But this "sober house" thing has made some pause to reflect upon his apparent lack of perfection.

      Delete
    10. 8:12 - We're paying for Bush's weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, as well. I'm also appalled by what the State is making Sierra Madre do (this, conserve more water than other cities). I think Trump is a nut case, but it is no wonder people don't want "politicians as usual." I'll have to look into this Libertarian Candidate.

      Delete
  10. Don't kid yourself. This is redistribution of wealth. You busted your butt so you can live in a nice area with low crime. So then the "progressives" want to take that away from you.

    Aka "coveting your neighbors' goods".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. take a chill pill phil

      Delete
    2. Sorry. It was confiscated to help the addicts.

      Delete
    3. Let's not forget that the regulations imposed by the "progressives" also lead to unsustainable gains in the housing market.
      Basic economics: Limit supply and the prices will go up.

      Delete
  11. What a mess. I've had more experience than I wanted with addicts and alcoholics, and the only thing I've seen work for them is twelve step groups, when they are "sick and tired of being sick and tired." These rehab places are a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is no genuine debate on these issues. The supporters never answer the questions about what happens to property values, as though the affected home owners are obligated to sacrifice what they have worked for, for the greater good. Meanwhile, the operators of these places are making money hand over fist. If this condition is pressed, the response will be about compassion. It's not social engineering. It's corruption, taking monetary value from one person and giving it to another.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Write the city council:
    rarizmendi@cityofsierramadre.com

    JCapoccia@cityofsierramadre.com
    ddelmar@cityofsierramadre.com
    ggoss@cityofsierramadre.com
    JHarabedian@cityofsierramadre.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure what they can do. They can apply a legal scalpel around the edges and hope to control things that way, but none of this was their idea. It is imposed madness from the paid off pols in Sacramento and Washington. The rights of suburban communities are now something that can be sold off to the highest bidder.

      Delete
    2. I expect them to do research and stay current on what cities who can afford to take these rules up in court do. I expect them to see the danger that this is and to take positive steps to fight it.
      How about forming coalitions with other cities?

      Delete
    3. Here is a roster of local state and national politicians, and what they "will do about it."
      Liu - Nothing
      Holden - Nothing
      Portantino - Nothing
      Chu - Nothing
      Antonovich - Nothing
      Any questions?

      Delete
    4. Wait just a minute. Antonovich will definitely do something if it involves a photo op or naming something after himself.

      Delete
  14. It finally hit us, too:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-your-house-an-asset-or-a-liability/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Currently, real estate sellers and agent /brokers are not required to disclose drug recovery homes with 6 or less patients living in the home. It is not the fiduciary duty of a seller, buyers agent or sellers agent to due so. It is possible that if they did disclose it they maybe in violation of disability privacy laws and the sellers, agents and there brokers could get sued for such a disclosure. This is a buyer beware situation, due to the fact that the home a buyers purchase may be really be worth $100,000s less that the buyer actually pays due to not knowing about the recovery home next door. When they find out they will be very angry. Buyers really must now go to the neighbors to check out the neighborhood prior to writing an offer to inquire about any of these types of homes currently in the neighborhood. This is a part of what the Feds are doing to destroy the few safe middle class suburban locations that are left and also destroy the high home values in those areas.
    Signed by: A local REALTOR serving Sierra Madre CA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting 12:00. Good to get the straight information.

      Delete
    2. Impoverishing the middle class for the good of all. Great value for our Federal tax dollars.

      Delete
  16. Also to make things even more complicated, if a direct question is ask about the existence of such a home directly to a buyers agent, sellers agent or the seller, then they will have the legal duty to answer truthfully to the potential buyer's question. So if you answer truthfully you could be sued by the recovery home. If you do not answer truthfully or due not respond to the direct question you could be sued by the buyer. The state says that if you are asked a direct question about a drug home being in the neighborhood and the disclosure is made based on the direct question, the state says you are not in violation only of the response is totally "Factual" and not to aid discrimination against the license care facility. However the care facility could take a different view over how the disclosure was made and still try to sue all parties to the disclosure. I do not believe this has been tested in court yet. Our government has become totally out of control, pushing honest people into a litigious, catch 22 type of a situation as to know how and when disclose or not disclose in order to not get in trouble with the State and Federal Government. You can get screwed no matter which way you go.

    A local REALTOR serving Sierra Madre CA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heaven help us.

      Delete
    2. It is kind of like the plague.

      Delete
  17. Even the fact that the West Carter recovery home address is being talked about on this blog could open up a liability suit if someone in the comments section, or the actual news article is deemed to be discriminating against a protected class of people at that address. The insanity of the US government is really beyond belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But that address is all over the internet. Complete with maps to the location. ?

      Delete
    2. Amazing, right? Heroin addicts are a protected class.

      Delete
  18. Here is a great link for lots of information one might want to learn about drug recovery homes in California. http://www.soberhousing.net/housing_rights.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are sober housing and supportive housing synonymous?

      Delete
    2. No. They're euphemisms.

      Delete
    3. You mean they're euphemistic?

      Delete
    4. This:
      eu·phe·mism
      (ˈyo͞ofəˌmizəm/noun)
      a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.
      "“downsizing” as a euphemism for cuts"

      Delete
    5. I was making a joke about your use of a noun when I had posted with an adjective.
      From,
      A grammar nerd.

      Delete
    6. I was talking the gist, not the gerund.

      Delete
    7. Lol lol
      Great laugh. Thanks

      Delete
  19. I wonder if this treatment business had come to the neighbors and introduced themselves, and explained what their business was, it might have gone over better. Better than the neighbors being surprised and having thier property values assaulted out of the blue.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This whole conversation would be different if rehabs worked.
    But they don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you should try hypnosis, you're getting sleepy,sleepy sleepy, slee.....

      Delete
  21. http://www.citizensopposingprohibition.org/resources/swiss-heroin-assisted-treatment-1994-2009-summary/

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does the property owner have to have a business license to be in the rental business? He/she certainly has to declare this as income from the rental property now!

    ReplyDelete
  23. If it is rented in Sierra Madre, an owner has to have a business license and he will have to declare this income from the rental property on his personal tax return.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Consider voting with your feet! Let the 1% deal with the homeless populations.
    http://www.newsmax.com/MichaelReagan/middle-class-1-percent-san-francisco/2016/05/08/id/727731/

    ReplyDelete
  25. Different subject altogether, but there is another power play going on at City Hall as Elaine tries to take charge of the City Clerk's office. At the council meeting tomorrow night, there is a proposal to cut the salary of our newly elected city clerk, and you better believe that she will be reduced to a "ceremonial" clerk and the bulk of the business will happen in Elaine's office. Elaine has tried this before. Read the staff report carefully and you will see that she is comparing neighboring cities who have a full time "Deputy City Clerk" who does most of the work that Nancy currently did. No mention how much the salary is for a Deputy City Clerk in Elaine's comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So the real comparison would involve adding the deputy city clerk's and the city clerk's salaries?

      Delete
    2. You got it.

      Delete