Skip to comments.Come to Florida, live next door to a drug rehab center
Posted on 04/27/2014 8:25:27 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
In a stunning slap in the face of Florida homeowners, RINO Budget leader Joe Negron (R-Stuart) let die in the Florida Senate this week a well written, Sober Homes Regulations Bill sponsored by Sen. Jeff Clemens (D-Lake Worth). Negron used his power as head of the State Senate Appropriations Committee to ignore much needed legislation in Florida, as the sunshine state is fast becoming the nations go-to rehab locale!
According to a Palm Beach Post (PBPOST) article written by reporter Christine Stapleton, Clemons said Negron warned him twice on April 23, that he, Negron, would NOT call up Senate Bill 582 for a vote unless Clemons agreed to late night amendments which would effectively negate the effects of the bills regulations. (1) Clemons vows to keep bringing up this much needed Sober Homes Regulations Bill, even though his efforts have been thwarted two years in a row by RINO Republicans not willing to hear the pleas of their constituents, that is, the voters and homeowners who live near Sober Homes.
Sober Homes, one of several euphemisms applied to drug and alcohol rehab centers proliferating throughout Florida...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
An enterprising person of dubious character would purchase/lease/rent a home adjacent and start up a “midnight apothecary”......
Thanks for the idea. Under consideration. ;)
In my business we provide services to four such places....
They are well mantained and have security....but almost all of the residents are the scum of the earth....
Would not like to have one in my neighborhood.....
These ones are in commerically zoned areas...
They opened a drug rehabilitation center in a bustling suburban strip mall near us. The other businesses were bankrupt within a year.
They should be placed in the neighborhoods of the politicians that voted for them. Quite often people will be all for something until it is proposed in their neighborhood, then they are outraged. A classic example is the wind farm off the coast of MA that was proposed years ago, the old drunken murderer went nuts!
This is also my solution for soft on crime judges, put the half way houses by their homes.
While i am surprised at the tone of this calling the objecting Senator a RINO, I am even more surporised that it is directed at a Senator opposing a DEMOCRAT SPONSORED Bill
That has a red flag to me in itself- what’s in it for the Dems? Why do they want this bill? Why is it bad for a Republican to oppose it?
I have enough experience with Dems that automatically opposing anything they want is a proven good strategery.
Am I missing a point here?
The Palm Beach Compost supported this bill - therefore without knowing much about it I appose this bill.
The author is less than well acquainted with the issue. Any bill crafted will have to meet ADA and FHA requirements. It is in violating provisions of these two laws that most local ordinances and state statute regarding “sober homes” fail.
Recovering drug addicts and alcoholics are a protected class so any legislation that specifically addresses their occupancy of a resident is not likely to bear scrutiny.
The best way local municipalities can limit the proliferation of such sober homes is by adopting a housing code which limits the number of occupants based on a real issue of public health, safety, and welfare. An example would be basing an maximum occupancy load on the square footage of living space or on the size of the septic tank.
If a license for sober homes is required a court would probably void that requirement if it was shown the reason for the license was so a city could discriminate against the occupants of such homes. I am not sure why such homes are not under the authority of the Department of Health or Chidren and Families except that the residents of sober homes are not considered a vulnerable population in need of state protection.
These homes would not be such a problem if they were not so profitable. What makes them so profitable is that they will never lack for clients. Occupancy in such home are not always voluntary but people re sent to such homes on court order. This means there will always be a demand as using them does take some burden off of tax payer supported correctional facilities.
The state might get away drafting a law that required licensing of “sober homes” that took in clients mandated by the court to be there. The intention would have to be to make sure conditions of the court order were being met, as well as any contractual obligations between the state and the provider of those services. The intention could not be to prevent occupation by a protected class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.