NEIGHBOURS' RIGHTS VERSUS GROUP HOMES

Homes that care for and treat needy adults, such as Turning Point in
Richmond, are often met with protests. Surrey should approach the problem
cautiously to avoid losing good homes.

Finding a place to open a group home has always been difficult because of
neighbourhood resistance, known as NIMBYism -- not in my backyard. Despite
the good that many of these homes do in the form of care and treatment for
needy adults, Surrey may be making it more difficult to keep them open.

This is not a condemnation of Surrey council's actions. The city seems to
have more than its share of problem houses. But the way it is going about
solving the problem is a concern.

Under an agreement between the province and the municipalities to counter
NIMBYism, group homes with beds for no more than 10 people, only six of
whom can be in care, can locate in residential neighbourhoods. Provided
these small facilities meet fire and health regulations, they are allowed
to locate where they like. Larger facilities face more restrictions.

In many cases their neighbours do not know they are there. Vancouver has
161 of them, and Mayor Philip Owen says they have not been a source of
problems for council.

Vancouver, however, requires larger care homes to take out a development
permit, which means the city can keep an eye on them. But Surrey has no
regulations, a factor that, along with cheaper land, has attracted about 50
alcohol and drug treatment facilities in recent years. It tends to be the
larger ones, with more than six clients, that become noticeable. One block
sports three of them, says Mayor Doug McCallum, who along with his council
mates is hearing a rising number of complaints from neighbours.

All of the homes are supposed to have provincial licences governing the
physical surroundings, staffing and so on. But some do not, arguing that
because their clientele are not put in the home by some medical authority
they are free to come and go. Some care facilities turn out to be bad
neighbours, and the complaints they generate are justified.

But some neighbours complain because they just do not want such a home next
door. That appears to be the case in Richmond, where the Turning Point
recovery home for male alcohol and drug addicts endures daily protests.
Although Turning Point made life difficult for itself by moving into a cul
de sac, where it tends to stand out, Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt says it would
be wrong to make the operation move.

But Surrey has come out swinging at good and bad alike, ordering all the
larger drug and alcohol recovery houses essentially to seek permission to
operate. Usually this will mean getting approval from the neighbours as
well as city hall. Mr. McCallum says the move is designed to catch the bad
actors. But it seems likely to flush out all the NIMBYists, with the
resulting loss of facilities that provide a service of benefit to society
as well as to individuals.

A more narrowly targeted policing action which went after the homes that
have prompted complaints would safeguard both the interests of
neighbourhoods and society. And ensuring all of them have a provincial
licence makes good sense.