A new federal court decision to allow Costa Mesa’s zoning rules on sober living homes to stand could help other cities struggling to regulate a slice of the drug and alcohol rehab industry that often brings chaos to neighborhoods in Orange County and throughout Southern California.
Sober living home operators challenged the city’s earlier court victories, which found that Costa Mesa’s groundbreaking regulations on the industry do not discriminate against the disabled. The challenge failed in the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“The district court did not err,” the appeals court said several times in its ruling, filed Sept. 8.
Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, who helped craft the city’s legal approach when she was mayor of Costa Mesa, suggested the decision could be felt beyond Costa Mesa.
“The ruling is that the Costa Mesa ordinance is nondiscriminatory and lawful,” she said. “That matters because Costa Mesa was really the only city to challenge the sober living home industry and take it all the way. No one had really done that before. I hope it allows cities to feel more comfortable adopting regulatory schemes like Costa Mesa’s.
“It’s going to protect the patients, the process, the taxpayers, the neighborhoods,” Foley added. “There are a lot of good reasons why we have regulations in this space.”
Steven G. Polin, one of the attorneys for the sober homes, sees things differently.
“The appeal court did not rule on the merits of the appeal,” he said. “The 9th circuit conducted no analysis of the ordinance. In essence, it left in place the decisions of the lower court.”
Local residents argue that sober homes are big-money businesses that have brought chaos to their once-quiet residential neighborhoods. Operators say they’re essentially families of like-minded people who should be treated the same as everyone else.
The conflict springs from Costa Mesa’s zoning laws imposing restrictions on where and how sober living homes can operate.
No sex offenders
Costa Mesa’s rules prohibit sex offenders, violent felons and drug dealers from operating sober homes. The city also requires sober homes to maintain 24/7 supervision of clients, mandates a minimum 650-foot separation between facilities, and requires a special city permit, which operators say has been virtually impossible to get.
Residents must be actively participating in “legitimate” recovery programs, and when people are kicked out or leave the sober living homes, operators must provide transportation so their former patients don’t wind up on local streets and parks.
Sober living home operators sued the city, arguing that such rules blatantly discriminate against the disabled.
Recovering addicts and alcoholics are protected by the Americans With Disabilities and Fair Housing acts and, because of that, sober home operators argued that their homes could not be regulated as businesses. Until recently, that strategy succeeded in keeping sober living laws off the books in most cities.
But the lower court’s decision, which the appeals court let stand, concluded that just because people were once addicted to drugs or alcohol, it doesn’t mean they’re automatically “disabled” and entitled to protection under federal law. Instead, disability must be proven individually, on a case by case basis. The sober living homes refused to do that, citing privacy laws that prevent them from sharing such health information.
It’s the sober living homes’ right to invoke those privileges, the judge said, “but they may not use them as both a sword and a shield.”
Forward
Costa Mesa Mayor John Stephens, who worked on the legal strategy with Foley, said the city’s “reasonable regulations” are necessary to preserve the character of his city’s neighborhoods and protect all residents.
Each side will pay its own costs for the appeal, but the question of who will pay what for earlier litigation is heading back to the district court.
That’s in light of a recent decision that civil rights plaintiffs should not be assessed costs if they lose, unless the matter was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless. “This went to jury trial, therefore the matter cannot be said to be frivolous, unreasonable or groundless,” said Polin, one of the sober home attorneys.
The city’s latest victory comes as the powerful California Department of Housing and Community Development is taking the exact opposite tack.
The department has sent letters to several cities that have adopted sober living laws, saying those laws discriminate against the disabled. The cities must take immediate steps to repeal those laws or face losing millions in state housing funds, and perhaps a legal battle with the California Attorney General.
Encinitas received one of those letters and quickly dropped its sober living laws. Anaheim got one and did not back down. Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach have never received such letters.
“We are encouraged by Costa Mesa’s legal victories,” said Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates. “We crafted our ordinances for Huntington Beach carefully. They are backed with extensive legal research, and we believe are legally firm.”
The California Department of Housing and Community Development said it has not sent any warning letters to cities since May.
But at that time, state officials wrote that the agency was aware of “the private disputes in Costa Mesa and the court’s opinion” in earlier cases. Still, officials wrote, the state “remains committed to its mission to promote safe, affordable homes for all Californians, including those who are recovering from substance abuse.”
Source: Orange County Register
Be First to Comment