Why is the Baltimore City Council more willing to spend taxpayer dollars to defend illegal laws that keep its citizens out of drug treatment than to invest in their recovery? They should stop defending a fifty-year old zoning law that shuts out the very health care services that so many citizens want and need.
The City knows its restrictions on the opening or expansion of residential drug treatment programs violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act. The U.S. Department of Justice knows it too, and has been working with the City Solicitor and treatment providers for almost two years to find a remedy. Last year, Mayor Dixon introduced a bill that would amend Baltimore’s zoning code so that it no longer discriminates against citizens seeking treatment for drug addiction.
Mayor Dixon’s bill is fair and fiscally prudent. It would bring the City in line with the zoning standards of surrounding counties. It applies to only those treatment programs that meet state licensure standards, many of which also meet national accreditation standards for health care facilities. It adopts the same zoning standard for licensed drug treatment programs that the City has enforced for over ten years for residential services for persons with mental illness. It also creates a point person in the Mayor’s office to address community concerns and provide linkages to state officials and local enforcement officials.
Why does the City Council refuse to act on the bill? It should do the math. State data show that among patients who received residential treatment in 2006, the percentage who gained employment tripled between admission and discharge. These individuals pay taxes. They regain their health. They contribute to safer neighborhoods. We can’t afford to pass up these remarkable results.
Because the City Council continues to drag its feet, the Department of Justice is now ready to bring a federal civil right lawsuit against the City. The City’s own attorney has advised the City Council that it won’t win this fight. The City Council won’t use its own funds to defend this lawsuit, so why should it be permitted to squander taxpayer dollars? The Council’s action even puts Baltimore’s federal treatment dollars at risk because it’s perpetuating discrimination even as it spends those funds.
The City Council has time to adopt a fair zoning law before a court orders it to do so.
Hi Ellen,
Please provide us, your readers, with some helpful links so we can understand the *back story* and take action.
* Where can we go for more information about the proposed legislation?
* How can we learn who, or what, seems to be holding up passage.
* For folks who don’t know how to contact their Council Member, Council President, et al, where can we find this info?
Your thoughts are provocative, help us learn more and take action.
Catherine
Catherine Carey
3000 Block Chesterfield Ave
As far as contacting the city council, you can find their phone numbers and email addresses at the below link. If emailing, be sure to email your councilperson, and cc the council president as well.
http://www.baltimorecitycouncil.com/members.htm
More information on the bill (pretty sure this is the one being referenced above):
http://legistar.baltimorecitycouncil.com/detailreport/?key=3690
Ellen, Is it also true as reported in the Sun this morning that unlicensed home do not require approval by the City Council? I would anticipate that unlicensed group homes are likely to less attractive in a neighborhood than a licensed home.
Clinton Bamberger
I was in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for over 20 years (1958-1978) enforcing the federal civil rights laws. We had a maxim — “Civil Rights violators who slop at the public trough litigate ad infinitum.” That is, if the City Attorney or Attorney General will bear the costs of litigation, the public officials who violate the Civil Rights laws will defend their actions forever, including multiple appeals.
Priate defendants who have to bear the costs of litigation will be advised by their lawyers and their accountants to settle the case early.
I agree that we need to position ourselves to provide the necessary health care (for addicts and for others) to all who need it whenever they realize that they need the care.
It is a mistake to offer drug treatment only to those who are arrested and are sent to drug court. This makes commiting a crime a prerequisite for getting needed health care. There is also the question of whether a person can benefit from treatment when it is forced on them by the threat of imprisionment.
The money spent on attempting to enforce drug laws in the criminal courts would be more effectively spent on a public education campaign to encourage addicts and others with mental health problems to seek help voluntarily and by creating and funding the treatment programs they need.
The health insurers avoid covering these kinds of health problems, because the costs are not predictable and professional gamblers do not take unpredictable risks.
Much, if not all, of the criminal law could be abolished if we would enthusiastically seek ways to prevent violence and predatory behavior. This should include providing every child with a solid education and making readily available a wide variety of training for work skills and trades. Good jobs are an alternative to much criminal behavior.
As the Maryland Justice Policy Institute says, “INVEST IN CHILDREN; NOT IN PRISONS.”