On Tuesday, April 11, a "Community Action Meeting" was held at the Women's 20th Century Club regarding what to do about a proposed Drug Rehab House in Eagle Rock. It was well attended by community members, elected officials and/or their staff and LA County staff members. Several things were very clear by the end of the meeting.

1. The (majority of the people attending the meeting) Community do not what a drug rehabilitation facility anywhere in Eagle Rock.

2. Very little is known about the proposed drug rehabilitation facility and what is proposed, how it is to be run, under what laws it is authorized, and what, if anything, can be done to stop it.

3. The owner of the property has given tenants notice that he intends to turn the property into a drug rehabilitation facility and requested them to relocate.

4. Councilmember Huizar has said words to the effect that he will oppose any kind of drug rehabilitation facility at this location.

5. At the time of the meeting, no evidence of any sort of application for a drug rehabilitation facility had been found by State, County or City representatives.

Copies of correspondence received on this matter are included below for your information:

-------------------------------------------

Dear Michael:

In answer to your questions about putting the blame on politicians with respect to the almost-there drug rehab facility on Glen Alysa Avenue, I think much of it is warranted. If they don't know about Prop 36 (the state ballot initiative that makes these sort of drug rehab houses possible) they should. And if they do, I think they should be fighting harder to keep the California Penal system from dumping usually young drug offenders into residential neighborhoods with no community notification, no community input and, from what I can see, no set criteria as to where these places can be located. That's the state of affairs now, and only politicians can write and pass legislation to change that.

I agree with you that the "neighbor" who is doing this seems to have no regard for the very neighborhood he lives in. Perhaps it's the revenue stream of a couple of thousand per month per "patient" that he can't wait to have.

But I suspect that appealing to him will do no good.

Putting the feet of elected representatives to the fire--who often love to make speeches about how much they care for kids, the state of our neighborhood, etc, etc, etc--is a way to make sure that the law is re-written to make community input an absolute necessity in the case of a private citizen converting his apartment building into a public drug treatment center. And, further, that there be specific guidelines as to where they can be located. Just as a bar or restaurant that serves liquor has to go through a very public process to get permission to operate in the public sphere, so should state-mandate drug rehab centers.

FYI: Here's the email I have sent to all elected reps on that postcard. If you want action, politicians listen to two things: The number of people who hold a certain position (polling) and how much money those voters may contribute either to them or their future opponent.

Here's the e-mail:

"As you may know or have heard, a local landlord in Eagle Rock is in the midst of converting his apartment building into a drug rehabilitation facility under the provisions of Proposition 36. That proposition allows first and second time so-called non- violent drug offenders to get treatment in a facility rather than go to jail.

Within blocks of the property at 5091 Glen Iris Avenue are six public, private or charter schools, the local library and the rapidly revitalizing retail and restaurant district of our community. One school is one block away.

All this is being done, apparently in accordance with the law, without any community notification or community input.

I have one question for you, with the following given circumstances:

1) A University of California Study found that almost 10 percent of Proposition 36 participants are heroin users, (and only 1 percent of those sentenced to treatment under the initiative get methadone. The one proven way for users to kick the habit).

2) There have been "lower success rates" for heroin users than other drug offenders in the program. (Sacramento Bee 2/26/2006)

3) According to the California Society of Addiction Medicine (a supporter of Prop 36): First- time clients under Prop 36 were more commonly men, under 35 and methamphetamine users.

4) There can be second-time clients in these facilities under Prop 36.

5) Many first-time clients have a drug use history of 10 years or more.

6) These drug rehab house are, in effect, an extension of the California Penal System.

All this being said, I have one question and two follow-ups for you:

--For the record, is it your public position that it’s an appropriate use of our taxes to house heroin and methamphetamine addicts within a blocks of six public or private schools and the local library?

--If you think it isn't: What are you going to do to protect the children of the community?

--And what are you going to do for the nearby homeowners who, under real estate disclosure laws, will lose equity in their home being so closely located to a public drug rehab center?

I look forward to your replies and hope to see you at the public meeting in Eagle Rock on April 11th, 2006.

Sincerely,

Chris Grove, Eagle Rock

-------------------------------------------

Hi Michael,

I hadn't heard of the proposed reehab center until I read the e-letter. Where is the proposed site?

Thanks for all of the info you send weekly. It really keeps us informed.

Steve Faust

Thank you Steve. The location is 5091 Glen Iris Avenue, south of Colorado Boulevard.

-------------------------------------------

I have lived in Eagle Rock almost all my life and while I share the concern of other residents in Eagle Rock about the opening of a rehabilitation center, I have to ask "how many of the now concerned citizens voted for the legislation that created this program?" "Where did you think they were going to open these facilities?"

Thom Brennan

-------------------------------------------

It seems to me that a few basic facts are eluding people as the location of a drug rehab program is debated by T.E.R.A.:

1. No matter how it is divided up, every person, by definition, has to be *some place.*

2. Our society has decided that some addictive drugs (read that: illegal drugs) are BAD, while other addictive drugs (read that: tobacco, alcohol, etc.) are OK.

3. We want people NOT to be addicted to the BAD drugs, and wish that programs be available for efforts to help people "kick the habit" of addictive drugs to take place.

Yet in spite of this, we are loathe to have persons who are going through a drug rehab program to be in OUR neighborhood, while gladly allowing businesses that sell OK addictive drugs to be located in our neighborhood.

Tell me, please: what's wrong with this picture?

Tom Griffith, Eagle Rock

Thanks to all for contributing to the debate. As to the question, "What's wrong with this picture?", I think the better question is, "What's missing from this picture?" The answer to that is that most of the facts are missing from the picture. What kind of a facility is it? How will it be run? Who will run it? What are the regulations, if any, under which it will operate? What permits and entitlements, if any, are required for such a facility? Who will be living in the facility? What impact will the facility have on adjacent residential and commercial uses? When will the facility begin operation? What, if anything, can and should be done about the facility, who occupies it and how it is operated? And the elected representatives, their staff, and the public officials attending the meeting are in the best positions to obtain the answers to those questions and get the information out to the community.