Assume the zombie stance: Stagger forward, arms outstretched, and croak “All sober homes are good and I’ll eat your brain if you disagree” in a terrifying monotone.
Read more ‘Ferytale’ continues at Wimbledon as Arthur Fery reaches semifinals
Then, flash your badge!
California’s willful blinders on the issue of sober homes and their placement in residential communities are epic, infuriating and deadly: Despite the overdoses, insurance fraud and general mayhem that poorly run rehabs and sober living homes have inflicted on patients and neighborhoods in sunny SoCal, A The list of cities that might be sued include Costa Mesa, Mission Viejo, Fountain Valley and many more.
To some in Sacramento, it apparently doesn’t matter that the federal courts have ruled that laws seeking to regulate sober living homes are fine if the laws help, rather than harm, the vulnerable people living in them. Bonta and the California Housing and Community Development folks insist that any oversight of sober homes discriminates against the disabled, period. (Really, what do the federal courts know?!)
“California law protects the right of people with disabilities to live in inclusive, community-based housing,” said Attorney General Rob Bonta in a prepared statement.
“Today, we’re making clear that local governments cannot use a narrow federal court decision as justification to undermine those expansive protections or exclude vulnerable Californians from their communities. State courts — not federal courts — have the final say on what California law means.”
Hmm. California law seems incapable of comprehending what has been exhaustively and tragically documented: That the private-pay slice of California’s addiction treatment system, which finances and runs many sober living homes, is rife with disgusting abuse, and that the victims of that abuse often are, indeed, the “disabled” addicts seeking what they view as life saving treatment.
“They’re taking human beings and treating them as if they’re a commodity, as if they were oil or pork, and then selling them from one rehab center to another rehab center with no interest in actually helping them,” the state’s own Capt. Vlad Mikulich, an investigator with the California Department of Insurance, told the California Sober Living and Recovery Task Force last year.
“It’s a massive industry about money…. There is nearly zero regulation on what’s happening.”
Despite wee bites at reform, things may be worse now than ever, he said. (But what does an insurance investigator who has collected evidence leading to felony charges against treatment operators really know?!)
So, sex offenders are fine?
Costa Mesa is trying to bridge an abyss. It has spent some $20 million defending its laws, which prohibit sex offenders, violent felons and drug dealers from operating sober living homes; require operators to provide 24/7 supervision of patients; enforce no-drug and good-neighbor policies; and provide transportation to patients who leave. That last rule, the one about transportation, is aimed at preventing the practice of “curbing,” which is when sober homes eject patients into communities without providing them with any way of avoiding homelessness.
But the rule that sparked conflict here is the one that requires sober homes to be separated by at least 650 feet, to prevent institutionalization for residents and maintain the residential character of neighborhoods. The last month from the state, labeled “Technical Assistance,” informs the city that its denial of a permit for a sober home operated by Ohio House — because that home was in violation of the city’s 650-foot-separation rule — was illegal.
“This letter notifies the city that the denial violates state law and that the city council must grant the appeal and approve the application,” the state letter said. “Denying the application is part of Costa Mesa’s ongoing group home and reasonable accommodation policies and practices that violate state fair housing and planning and zoning laws….
“To comply with state law, the city must, among other things, immediately stop enforcing its group home ordinances, repeal them, and revise its reasonable accommodations policies,” the state said, asserting that sober homes “play a key role in substance abuse recovery by providing alcohol and drug free living environments that offer peer support for recovery.”
Some certainly do. But the powers-that-be haven’t seen the “420 friendly” sober homes that we’ve visited. Or understand that many of them are not friends joining together to be part of the community and live “clean” together, but are essentially dorms run by addiction treatment businesses to house people in their “out-patient” programs, with rent often paid a patients’ insurance billings (even though that’s illegal).
The AG clearly wants to turn Costa Mesa into a cautionary tale for any other cities that might believe they, too, have a right to regulate the placement of sober homes in their communities.
“Other local jurisdictions have looked to Costa Mesa’s regulations as models to use in proposing or adopting their own zoning code restrictions on group homes, including at least 11 other cities in Orange County,” the threatening letter continued. “Such widespread adoption and enforcement of policies like Costa Mesa’s would drastically reduce and restrict housing opportunities for persons with disabilities in California. This would contravene not only state housing laws but the policies underlying them, which recognize that persons with disabilities lack sufficient housing opportunities and require localities to remove constraints on and promote access to housing that meets their needs.”
But this, an attorney who represented Costa Mesa in many courtrooms, is exactly what its sober living ordinances mean to do.
“The State Attorney General’s position is disappointing and shocking,” said Seymour Everett III of Everett Dorey LLP. It undermines public safety, encourages exploitation of the most vulnerable and protects unscrupulous sober living home operators who exploit people for financial gain, he said.
“People are dying in sober living homes, neighborhoods are not safe, and it contributes to the homeless population by allowing these homes to force people onto the streets if they don’t pay or their insurance runs out,” he said.
“The jury spoke loudly in the Ohio House trial. On appeal, t. Costa Mesa and other cities are saving lives … by imposing common sense laws on operators.
Read more Global markets are mixed and oil prices rise as Iran and US launch new attacks
“The state is failing people who suffer from addiction,” Everett added.
“The state has put the interests of a multi-billion-dollar industry above both the disabled and non-disabled citizens of California, and decided to punish and impose significant costs on cities and their tax-paying residents in the process.”
City-splaining to state
While the heat is highest on trailblazer Costa Mesa — which adopted its sober laws more than a decade ago — other cities have heard from state officials as well.
In an email to Mission Viejo, the state’s Housing and Community Development folk wrote: “According to Section I. of the ordinance, the intent of the City Council … was to prevent a public safety threat posed by group homes. What findings or studies were used or relied upon by the city in order to enact the ordinance on this basis? Please share those.”
Mission Viejo was more than happy to oblige, providing relevant crime data.
“In Mission Viejo, just 10 state-licensed addiction treatment homes generated 84 emergency service calls, including 35 disturbances, 15 assists from county paramedics (largely for overdoses), and reports of attempted suicide, battery, vandalism, fraud, mental health crises, and gunshots, according to three years of data from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.
“Mission Viejo does know where nine of the sober homes in its boundaries are. Sheriff’s data shows that those homes generated 67 emergency calls over the same period, for overdoses, disturbances, mental health crises, burglary, theft, vandalism, assault, ‘person down’ and one dead body.” (It also references two stories by yours truly.)
The city also sent the state some of its own research about how sober living homes operate as businesses, information about a federal indictment related to an Orange County sober home’s alleged “body broker” scheme, a 2024 auditor’s report about how sober homes circumvent rules aimed at preventing addiction centers from doing business in residential neighborhoods, and a 2024 report from the Orange County grand jury that detailed how the lack of oversight endangers the health and safety of residents in sober homes.
How did the California Housing and Community Development meet Mission Viejo’s thorough response?
With a cryptic “reminder” about
Hang together, or….
Fountain Valley also has received a after the city similarly denied a request from a sober home that would have been within 650 feet of another.
But in addition to saying the city’s 650-foot rule was invalid, the state also included a threat. Regulators said they “may” notify the state Attorney General and the Civil Rights Department, which might conduct “an administrative investigation and a possible enforcement action in court.”
The state argues that cities already have resources to legally address problems at individual group homes. If operators are creating public nuisances, or violating building, housing or health and safety laws, or committing fraud, or engaging in illegal activities, “the city can address these issues through the same code enforcement and other legal processes it applies to others who violate municipal codes and other laws. If the city has evidence that a group home operator is providing services that require a license without obtaining one, it can contact the state’s Department of Social Services or Department of Health Care Services, which can initiate investigations and take remedial action if appropriate.”
This is where the people on the front lines belly laugh. Sure, call DHCS! It might be a year — or more! — before it gets to your complaint.
Get rid of distance requirements between homes? Would love to see how Bonta (and the enforcers at Housing and Community Development) would feel if a campus of rehabs treating dozens of people — like the five homes in one little nook of San Diego County, and the three in one little nook in Orange County — set up shop on their block. That’s not reintegrating into the community; that’s creating your own bubble.
Look, folks. When I sign a lease and grab my friends and we all vow to support each other in our sober journeys, that’s a sober living home. When the business treating me rents me a bed by the month in a house while I’m in its outpatient program (at insanely below-market rates because it’s getting the dough it needs from my insurer), that’s a business. Why can’t California see the difference?
Many of the people coming to SoCal for treatment are from far away, flown in by rehabs that are trying to put “heads in beds” (and money in pockets).
They’re also at risk.
A new study published in the journal Substance Use & Misuse found that out-of-state visitors to the O.C. cities with the highest concentration of addiction treatment centers were 159% more likely to overdose. Just coincidence, right, Bonta?
The sober home ordinances that the state is attacking are modeled after Costa Mesa’s rules; rules that have prevailed over these exact kinds of objections in federal court. These rules were developed under the guidance of the Sober Living Task Force, where the “hang together, or most assuredly, we shall all hang separately” approach clearly anticipated this exact challenge.
“The state is confusing housing problems with addiction problems,” said Everett, one of Costa Mesa’s attorneys.
“The state must not sacrifice the lives of people who suffer from addiction by telling cities they cannot regulate housing. The State Attorney General’s statement is short sighted, misleading and dangerous to the public.”
Addiction treatment is life-or-death health care. Will we ever treat it that way?
Read more El Nino powers up as forecasters predict historic strength and a rainier winter for the US South