Rehab blocks toured for input

Newport Beach Councilwoman Leslie Daigle recently toured neighborhoods residents say are overrun with rehabilitation group homes. What she saw was surprising.

Newport’s City Council authorized its independent legal counsel last week to take action against violators of a moratorium against them. The council recently continued a moratorium on new group homes in Newport Beach through October 2008. Many residents have complained the homes are a public nuisance, and the council plans to work out tighter regulations.

Question: How did your recent tour of local rehab homes come about?

Answer: During the past months, citizens have come before council expressing their concerns about group homes they graciously invited me to tour ground zero with them.

Q: If you can tell us, what specific homes did you visit?

A: It was not my intent to target any specific home or operator or use but rather to generally understand the secondary impacts of group residential uses that can affect neighborhoods, like parking or traffic or secondhand smoke. One of my goals was to determine if group homes were operating independently versus collectively. In some cases, I noticed what appears to be a systematic coordination of meals and transportation. Stockpiles of food and supplies were visible in open storage areas. White vans were shuttling people throughout the community.

I also visited what probably is an illegal boarding house up to 17 men co-habitating. Newport Beach does not allow boarding houses in our residential zones. It’s a boarding house masquerading as a sober-living home. Each Tuesday, boarders are required to come up with $150 cash or they find themselves and their worldly possessions tossed out on the streets. That kind of living arrangement would certainly cut my expenses.

Q: What did you hope to achieve or learn from the tour?

A: I wanted to improve my understanding of the situation so that I can make an informed decision on regulating group homes. It would be a mistake for me to make a decision from abstract third-party information.

It is my responsibility to fulfill the voice of the voters as it appears in the General Plan Update. The first sentence of the Vision Statement of the voter approved General Plan Update is to preserve and enhance our character as a beautiful, unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods.

Sitting and talking with people in their living room enabled me to feel empathy for the citizens that I am elected to serve.

Q: Was there anything you saw that surprised you on the tour?

A: What may have began as an isolated home here or there has, over time, led to an over-concentration of group homes in some parts of town. Over-concentration, to me, can’t be good for the neighborhood for persons in recovery trying to reintegrate into a typical residential setting.

I was moved though, by the impacts that even a single home can create on a neighborhood. I met with one of the neighbors, a retired school teacher who, with her husband, purchased a home on the boardwalk more than 35 years ago. She’s experienced the cycles of vacation rentals on the peninsula and added to that she now must deal with the intense and on-going impacts of a group home. A couple of doors down is a state-licensed rehab facility with a capacity of 49 persons. Each day, they tell me the trash truck, commercial mail carriers, food suppliers come down the alley to service this home — much like they would a business.

Q: Can you briefly describe what the inside of a typical rehab home looks like?

A: I didn’t go in any of them — but I understand that most of them look like any other home, except for, sometimes, coin-operated washers and dryers and a board listing household chores posted in the kitchen.

Q: Did you get any ideas for possible solutions to the problems some residents say surround these rehab homes?

A: This was a fact-finding mission, and I am still in the process of collecting information.

I will be working with fellow council members, special legal counsel, staff and the community on solutions that I believe will be aggressive but not reckless and ultimately for the benefit of the entire community.

Q: What positive impressions of the homes were you left with? What negative impressions?

A: You can tell that some of the homes do tend to fit in well. But the duplexes and triplexes with six people in each — then you add staff and deliveries and more just seem to stand out. It’s too many people in one place — whether they are in recovery or not.

My negative impressions are about the places that really don’t care about recovery — they care more about making a fast buck. They don’t drug test, they don’t require residents to be part of a treatment program or go to meetings. Not only are these folks preying on the vulnerability of their clients, but they are damaging the community.

Q: Many area residents have been vocal about their concerns over the number of rehab homes in Newport Beach. What are some of the concerns you heard from rehab-home proprietors, owners or operators?

A: I did speak with one of our police officers. Drug and alcohol abuse creates many societal problems — therefore recovery is important.

The state could not ignore the social problems reflected by the numbers of people in group homes. The statewide solution failed to anticipate the over-concentration of facilities in a local area.

Under current state law, every home in Newport Beach could be a rehab facility that would not be subject to local control. Clearly, we must find a way to deal with this issue in a manner that preserves our neighborhoods and meets the needs of the community.

I would appreciate the input of owners and operators. None of them have made any effort to approach me directly as I have only been contacted by them through legal posturing. I would however, welcome their input.

BRIANNA BAILEY may be reached at (714) 966-4625 or at brianna.bailey@latimes.com.