GROUP-HOMES LAW SHOULD BE CLARIFIED

WHEN California voters passed Proposition 36 in 2000, they said they wanted
non-violent drug addicts to get treatment instead of jail. They didn't
specify how or where that treatment would be provided.

The "where" question has turned out to be the tough one for cities.
Everyone thinks drug treatment is a good thing, it seems, unless it's
happening in a group home next door.

Yet this is not a simple NIMBY problem. Residents have legitimate concerns
about the impact of such programs on the surrounding area if the homes are
allowed to grow too large.

San Jose has been leading the debate on the group-homes issue since before
Proposition 36. In 1998, it passed an ordinance that established guidelines
for the approval of such facilities in residential neighborhoods. That
ordinance has become a model for other cities. But local politicians,
planners and residents think it's just not good enough.

Spurred by recent controversy over expansion of group homes in Willow Glen
and Almaden Valley for women recovering from addiction, city officials are
looking for ways to revise the law.

Recently the planning commission considered requests to expand the two
group homes to allow 25 and 18 people respectively, including the clients,
their children and live-in staff. Neighbors argued that concentrating so
many people in one house was asking for trouble and would put a strain on
their neighborhood. City staff said the zoning code didn't prohibit that
many residents in other houses, so denying the application would be
discrimination.

The planning commission took the reasonable middle ground, allowing 12
people in one house and 10 in the other. The decision pleased neither the
operator nor the neighbors, and lawsuits are likely.

Attorneys who represent group homes point out that laws require cities to
treat groups of recovering addicts like any other family or people living
together as a "single housekeeping unit." If cities don't limit the size of
families, then they can't limit the number of residents in a group home.
And because recovering addicts are considered disabled under federal law,
cities must show them "reasonable accommodation" to assure that they have
the same access to housing that the rest of the population has.

Based on those two legal provisions, many cities say they can't impose any
limits on group homes. But, as attorneys who represent neighbors point out,
the law leaves some room for interpretation. It's not clear that a group
home, in which residents live for only a couple of months and don't come
together by choice, fits the legal description of a "single housekeeping
unit." And it's not clear that the city has to pack the maximum number of
people allowed by law in a house in order to demonstrate "reasonable
accommodation."

Certainly the city must not tolerate discrimination against the disabled.
It must see that recovering addicts have appropriate housing. But it is
also the city's duty to protect the character of neighborhoods.

The law needs clarification. Either Congress, the state Legislature or the
courts must provide guidance so that cities know how best to protect the
rights of all residents, from the most vocal to the most vulnerable.