Task Force Studies Community Treatment

Centuries ago, and as recently as a few decades ago, people who had
difficulty fitting into society generally ended up in some sort of
institution.

These days, people with psychological, emotional, developmental or
substance-abuse problems are housed and treated within the community. Court
decisions, legislation and changes in attitudes have paved the way for this
change.

The question facing local governments is how they should regulate these
dwellings, if they regulate them at all.

Courts have ruled that some regulation is permissible, but cities must walk
a fine line in drafting these rules.

That's the situation the city of Tulsa now faces. A task force has developed
guidelines for regulating residential facilities that are inching their way
through the deliberative process.

In pursuing its mission, task force members were guided not only by the
latest in legal developments, but also this question: What about what's
right?

The work of the task force is solid, well thought-out and comprehensive. It
was not an easy task, balancing the interests of single-family
neighborhoods, business and industry, and the people who need these
services. But the result appears to be a satisfactory compromise.

The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission has approved the task
force's recommendations, with a few revisions. The proposals soon will go
before the City Council. Public hearings will be held.

The proposals are bound to generate some controversy, because they allow
some facilities to go into certain areas without any public hearings.

Officials say steps like that are necessary; otherwise, local regulations
could be deemed discriminatory because approvals are infrequent.

The TMAPC staff was set to review existing guidelines for special
residential facilities this year; that effort was speeded up after a
juvenile walked away from a treatment facility.

"The idea was to look at whether the old ordinance adequately met the
community's needs," said Jay Stump with TMAPC. "There was some concern the
Board of Adjustment was being too restrictive, that maybe not enough were
being approved to meet the demand. There also was a question of whether
we're properly regulating them."

Facilities looked at by the task force included detention, pre-release and
other correctional centers and jails; homeless centers; emergency and
protective shelters; and residential treatment centers and transitional
living centers.

Generally, these facilities are the type that house people who have been
adjudicated through the justice system; who have developmental or
psychological disabilities; who are homeless or in some sort of transition;
who are fleeing violence or abuse; or who have substance-abuse problems.

Smaller facilities housing six or fewer people -- like those now home to the
former Hissom population -- do not fall into the above categories.

Assistant city attorney Mike Romig explained that cities have to be careful
to ensure that their regulations do not have any discriminatory effect on
these populations. "The question is are you discriminating against a
particular class of people," he said. "The basic issue is civil rights."

Under existing regulations, these facilities can be located anywhere in the
city, but only with approval from the Board of Adjustment. In practice, that
regulation means very few get approved, since there usually is opposition.

Operators of these facilities have been finding it difficult to site new
ones. Another provider said thousands of clients are turned away each year
because of space limitations.

"The sum total of our current regulations, which require all providers to
get a special exception, could lead to the conclusion that the process is
discriminatory," said Joe Westervelt, task force chairman and a TMAPC
member.

Board of Adjustment members, Westervelt noted, also wanted changes to the
ordinance because they felt it gives them few alternatives but to give in to
worried homeowners who protest against proposed facilities.

Task force members, representing all affected segments of the community,
first compiled a laundry list of all problems and concerns, then sought to
identify solutions. "Our goal was to come up with a balanced public policy
that was fair and beneficial. ... At one point, one member raised the
question, `But what about what's right?' It really sort of hushed the room,"
said Westervelt. That too became a part of the task force's mission.

The task force decided treatment facilities should not be located in
single-family neighborhoods under any conditions. But members did recommend
allowing a few types -- transitional living centers and residential
treatment centers -- in some office, commercial and industrial zoning
districts without any public hearings. (The planning commission tightened
these recommendations to allow them only in some office categories and one
industrial zoning category.)

That latter recommendation means a few residential programs could pop up
here and there without nearby property owners knowing it, a prospect that is
bound to alarm some. But officials say such a provision is necessary to
prove Tulsa is not discriminating against these populations.

And, there's little evidence residential centers actually do harm nearby
properties. "If we can't demonstrate possible harm to neighborhoods, we
could have a hard time defending a denial in court," noted Romig.

The task force also recommends increasing spacing between facilities from
one-quarter mile to one-half mile, but to allow "clustering" when
appropriate.

The panel also wants to require city licensing of residential programs. It
seeks establishment of guidelines on size, staff- to-client ratio,
infrastructure, setbacks and other traits.

Ongoing monitoring of legal developments and creation of educational
programs for real estate professionals also were recommended, as was
face-to-face meetings between providers and affected property owners.

The task force also felt that efforts should be made to get neighborhoods to
better organize, so homeowners can stay abreast of developments, and to seek
legislative solutions to the problems providers have in seeking new
locations. Janet Pearson is an editorial writer for the Tulsa World.

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst