O'MALLEY SAYS HE'LL BACK EASING WAY FOR DRUG TREATMENT CENTERS

Advocates Point to Need, Compliance With U.S. Law

Mayor Martin O'Malley has renewed his support for legislation that
would make it easier for drug treatment programs to open, partly
allaying the concerns of treatment advocates who worried he was wavering.

O'Malley sponsored the bills last year, but they were held up in
committee by City Council members under pressure from residents
opposed to the bills. Treatment advocates recently asked O'Malley to
reintroduce the bills but grew uneasy when they didn't hear back from
him.

Recently questioned by a reporter, O'Malley said he still supported
the bills but hadn't had time to push them because he was
concentrating on the city budget. O'Malley dismissed speculation that
he had backed away from the bills because they were politically risky
and he is expected to run for governor.

"As soon as our budget season passes, we'll probably roll it out and
introduce it," he said.

Advocates said they were encouraged but still waiting for proof of
that support. They have yet to hear from City Hall.

"We have had no formal confirmation that he will do that," said Bow
Brenton, an administrator at Tuerk House, a residential treatment facility.

Supporters of the two bills say they would simplify an approval
process that has kept needed facilities from opening or concentrated
them in neighborhoods without the sway to fight them.

The city, they say, must also pass them to avoid lawsuits by treatment
providers contending that current regulations violate federal law by
discriminating against recovering addicts.

At recent meetings, city Health Commissioner Dr. Peter L. Beilenson
and his legislative director told treatment providers it was unclear
whether the mayor would renew his support.

Beilenson is scheduled to discuss the bills today with city Planning
Director Otis Rolley III, who supports the measures, and Deputy Mayor
Jeanne Hitchcock.

Some treatment advocates had been told by Rolley that the mayor would
not reintroduce the bills and might sign only one of them if it passed
anyway, said Ellen M. Weber, an assistant professor at the University
of Maryland School of Law and a drug policy activist. They had also
not received a response to a May 2 letter to O'Malley asking about the
legislation.

The bills' proponents said they hoped the mayor would follow through
on his statement of renewed support.

"It's very important to move forward, and we're delighted that's his
position," said Weber. "If he could give a date certain, that would be
great. ... It's difficult to [build support for the bills] unless they
have been introduced and the mayor is foursquare behind them."

Baltimore needs more treatment centers, Brenton said. Officials
estimate that about 50,000 addicts live in the city, but only 25,000
received treatment last year. If the city doesn't reform its rules, he
said, "we will be counting the cost in lives."

Brenton said he worries city leaders don't grasp the need for
additional clinics. He wants to meet with council members to discuss
the issue but was recently told he might have to wait until August.
"At this point, we are still advocating for the opportunity to
advocate," he said.

O'Malley said his office needs a more effective approach to council
opposition and residents' concerns. But despite its potential
political risk, he said, the legislation is needed to comply with
federal law and expand treatment capacity.

"We do what's right," O'Malley said. "I manage the politics. Part of
that management requires a communications strategy. We don't stop
making progress because of elections."

One bill would remove the requirement that treatment providers obtain
council approval for new outpatient facilities, and would instead
allow programs to open in any area where other medical offices are
allowed.

The second bill would clarify the city's rules for group homes
licensed to provide drug treatment, of which there are about 15 in the
city. Homes with eight or fewer residents could open in any
residential neighborhood, something the city has been allowing in
practice, and homes with nine to 15 residents would be able to open in
any area zoned for multifamily housing.

The bill would not apply to the city's hundreds of so-called
supportive homes that provide shelter but not treatment. These are
allowed to open in any residential area.

Some residents spoke out against the bills last year, saying they
would result in treatment programs clustering in low-cost
neighborhoods. But proponents argue that the bills would make it
possible for programs to open in any part of the city, regardless of
its political influence.

"If you can detangle the process, you have a better chance of seeing a
more balanced distribution of these centers across the city," said
Carlos Hardy, director of drug treatment and community outreach at the
Citizens Planning and Housing Association in Baltimore.

Several federal courts have ruled in recent years that recovering
addicts are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
that cities cannot hold outpatient drug treatment centers to zoning
rules beyond those for medical facilities such as dentist or doctor's
offices.

Montgomery and Anne Arundel counties have amended their zoning codes
to comply with federal law. Baltimore County, meanwhile, has been
enmeshed in a court battle over restrictions on methadone clinics.

Last year, the chairwoman of the City Council's land use panel, Lois
Garey, questioned whether the city was violating the law and did not
hold a hearing on the bills. She is no longer on the council. The new
land use chairman, Edward Reisinger, says he would hold a hearing if
the bills were reintroduced.

Weber, the law professor, said many treatment providers wanting to
open new programs haven't been granted hearings before the council
because they have been unable to get a council member to sponsor bills
for new centers on their behalf.

Herman Jones, the president of two methadone clinics in the city, said
his program might open another branch in the city if the regulations
were changed. "I'm almost sure [capacity] would increase if it were
made easier to go into areas," he said.

To assure residents that providers would take local concerns into
account without an approval process, providers have come up with
"good-neighbor doctrines." Weber said residents should also recognize,
though, that having a program open nearby could offer a benefit by
helping addicts in the area.

"You are having a very detrimental effect on communities because
you're not treating the problem," she said.