All posts in the topic Sober thoughts on fair housing (Short link)

2008 Jul 09 18:14 UTC

A three-year effort by residents of several St. Paul neighborhoods,
including Merriam Park and the West End, to mitigate the effects of
what is perceived to be a growing number and concentration of "sober
houses" in their midst was only partially successful in the run-up to
the City Council's consideration of the matter this week.

A proposal to regulate sober houses as a distinct land use for the
first time was approved by the Planning Commission on June 27. It
will also be the subject of a public hearing before the City Council
on July 2. The new regulations are expected to be in place before a
moratorium on the establishment of new sober houses in the city
expires on September 12.

The perception of a growing number of sober houses in St. Paul is
just that, because up to now there has been no method for regulating
that land use--much less a definition of it--and no one has any idea
how many sober houses are already operating in the city or where they
are located.

For regulatory purposes, St. Paul is now defining a sober house as a
dwelling "occupied by more than four persons in recovery from
chemical dependency and considered handicapped under the Federal Fair
Housing Act (FFHA) amendments of 1988 that provides a non-
institutional residential environment in which the residents
willingly subject themselves to rules and conditions intended to
encourage and sustain their recovery."

The new regulations would require sober house operators to submit a
request to the citys zoning administrator before opening a new
facility, indicate the number of residents, supply information that
shows the house meets city zoning and fire codes, and provide 1.5 off-
street parking spaces for every four residents or, short of that,
submit a written plan for shared parking or some other arrangement.
In single-family residential zones, new sober houses would be limited
to 10 or fewer residents. Sober houses serving 17 or more residents
would need to obtain a conditional use permit.

However, the Planning Commission excised a proposed requirement that
new sober houses be at least 330 feet apart. That decision obviously
pleased sober house operators, but it disappointed residents who had
labored to limit the concentration of such facilities in their
neighborhoods.

What prompted the Planning Commission to back off from the distance
requirement was a testily worded letter from former U.S. Attorney
David Lillehaug, on behalf of the Minnesota Association of Sober
Homes. If the Planning Commission were to ignore the "explicit,
written warning from the City Attorneys Office, the conclusion will
be inescapable that Planning Commission members are engaging in
intentional discrimination," Lillehaug wrote. In addition to the city
incurring substantial attorneys' fees, he threatened the
commissioners that "violations of the FHAA can result in punitive
damages awards against individuals."

It's true that U.S. courts have held that under the FHAA any
ordinance that singles out disabled people and applies different
rules to them from non-disabled people is "intentionally
discriminatory," and that people in recovery are considered by the
courts to be disabled. However, it seems that those who operate
facilities for people with that particular disability now have more
legal rights and protections than those who operate facilities for
people with other disabilities. The owners of regulated facilities
for people with other physical or mental disabilities must abide by
all kinds of rules and regulations, and their properties undergo
regular, rigorous inspections for safety issues. Sober house
operators squawk if they get a visit from a fire inspector.

There have been sober houses where electrical extension cords were
extended from one house to another. There have been sober houses
remodeled without permits. Are sober house residents sleeping in
basements or attics with no egress? Are sober houses proliferating
merely as a lucative means of getting around the city's boarding
house regulations?

Is cramming that many people into a single sober house even conducive
to a supportive atmosphere for recovery?

The operators of sober houses don't seem to want to play the game by
the same rules as other facilities for disabled people. And they seem
to want to be both player and ump.