That enormously frustrated sigh you hear is from Orange County officials who must promote and protect sober housing for recovering addicts — but can have no role in ensuring said housing is up to snuff.
To wit: Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that sought basic quality standards for sober living homes that contract with local governments on Friday.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a brief in federal appeals court attacking Costa Mesa’s rules trying to rein in unruly sober living homes last month.
Observers note that there’s a class of people some are trying to protect, but a dive into the data and statistics makes it unclear if they’re being protected at all.
It’s no secret that Sacramento is where plans to remake addiction treatment often go to die, but there was hope for Assemblymember Kate Sanchez’s Assembly Bill 1696.
Accountability
The Sober Living Accountability Act — which passed unanimously out of both the Assembly and the Senate, and waited hopefully on Newsom’s desk — would have required privately owned recovery residences that contract with county governments to provide written permission from the property owner attesting to its use; a code of ethics aligned with the National Alliance for Recovery Residences or the like; written policies addressing a resident’s right to access prescription and nonprescription medication, including medication-assisted treatment (currently frowned upon by “just another drug” types, even though it’s the gold standard of opioid treatment); and proof that naloxone is available and staff knows how to use it.
It’s important to understand that recovery residences/sober living homes are not the same as licensed or certified addiction treatment facilities. Those licensed/certified facilities, usually tract homes in residential neighborhoods, are where treatment actually happens (in theory, at least). Those are regulated by the state.
In contrast, sober homes — also usually found in tract homes in residential neighborhoods — are where folks go after formal treatment is done. They’re supposed to be simple collections of folks supporting each other in recovery, living together like any other family or group of friends. And since addiction is considered a legal disability, these folks are a protected class.
Sanchez’s bill would have applied only to sober homes that provide government services. But Newsom said no nonetheless.
“This bill would require any privately-owned recovery residence that contracts with a government entity to provide documented policies and procedures related to its operations, code of ethics, and patient access to medications,” his veto message says. “Privately-owned recovery residences, as defined by this bill, are not subject to state licensure or certification. Therefore, AB 1696 would conflate requirements in existing law for licensed and certified programs providing substance use disorder recovery services with new requirements for privately-owned recovery residences, which the California Department of Health Care Services does not oversee or enforce. This may create confusion among people seeking recovery services from licensed or certified programs or treatment facilities.
“For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”
Sanchez, R-Rancho Santa Margarita, was very disheartened by the veto.
Her bill sought “to prevent the state and local governments from directing taxpayer dollars to unscrupulous, bad actors in the sober living home industry,” she said via text. “AB 1696 passed unanimously out of both houses of the Legislature and would have enacted common-sense safeguards to ensure that the state only contracts with sober living facilities following nationally recognized best practices that keep residents and communities safe.
“Despite the Governor’s unwillingness to support these standards, I’m committed to continue working on this issue to improve the quality of sober living homes for our communities and those suffering from substance use disorder.”
She plans to introduce a new version of the bill, with some modifications, in the next session.
Discrimination?
On an extremely similar note, California’s Attorney General has brought the great weight of his office to bear on Costa Mesa’s ongoing battle to regulate sober living homes. Bonta wants Costa Mesa to lose.
Costa Mesa’s rules prohibit sex offenders, violent felons and drug dealers from operating sober living homes. They require homes to be supervised 24 hours a day, seven days a week; that operators enforce a no-drug policy and a good-neighbor policy; that they don’t just expel and “curb” people when there’s a problem, but instead get in touch with the person’s emergency contact and ensure that the person has a ticket home.
The rules also require a separation of 650 feet between sober living facilities, “to prevent institutionalization and maintain the residential character of the neighborhood.” That’s the rule that the federal discrimination case at hand revolved around.
Ohio House had five sober homes clustered together in Costa Mesa, housing nine men in each. That’s eight residents and one house manager, for a total of 45 people. It’s a for-profit business and each bed cost $1,500 per month. That’s a potential $60,000 a month, or up to $720,000 a year, when every bed is full, according to testimony at trial.
There was no allegation that anything was amiss at Ohio House. But under Costa Mesa’s ordinance, its homes were too close to similar facilities. When the city refused to grant it an exception, Ohio House sued in federal court, charging discrimination against a protected class.
A jury handed Costa Mesa a victory in federal court last year. “Do you find…that Defendant City of Costa Mesa engaged in discrimination because of a disability, in violation of the Fair Housing Act or the Fair Employment and Housing Act…?” the verdict form asked. “No,” the federal jury replied.
Ohio House appealed. Bonta has weighed in on its side, arguing that the jury’s verdict must be reversed.
“Ordinances like Costa Mesa’s not only violate fundamental principles of state housing and antidiscrimination law; they are also contrary to California’s critical public policy goals and do real harm to people with disabilities,” the AG argued in a friend-of-the-court brief. “The accommodation Ohio House has requested may be consistent with, and indeed required by, state housing law.”
So cities must promote and protect these businesses, completely blind to their quality.
Great idea.
