I'm still disappointed that no one has yet gotten the reference in the category so I'm using it a little more loosely to include the headline writers, and even the reporter, of this story (registration probably required), though other categories might be more appropriate.
Protester of group home is targetedWell, two things occurred to me on reading that. (1) Why would anyone be so uncharitable as to "vitriolically" oppose a home for developmentally disabled people? (2) But an investigation? That seems a bit overreactive (especially since, later, we find out that the woman's conduct seems to consist primarily of placing signs in her yard).
A Norco woman upset over disabled neighbors faces a state and federal investigation for alleged housing discriminationState and federal authorities have opened an investigation into a Norco housewife, alleging that her vitriolic protests against a high-risk group home in her neighborhood may constitute housing discrimination.
The inquiry makes the actions of Julie Waltz, 61, the first test of a controversial new tactic by advocates for the developmentally disabled to stop protesters from trying to drive group homes from neighborhoods throughout the state.
But of course, reading further into the story:
The tempest in Norco began in 2005 after the home next to Waltz on Broken Arrow Street was sold. She said she learned from public records that it was to be a group home for "fire-setting," "sexually inappropriate" and "physically aggressive" people.Boy howdy, that's just who I want moving in next door.
Over Waltz's objections, the home received state funds to open in 2005. Waltz said that when her new neighbors arrived, they hurled rocks and obscenities at her. She and some neighbors then placed signs in their yards urging the group home to "get out" and warned neighbors that "your wife and kids are potential rape victims" — driving the residents inside to tears, according to their advocates.Well, I'm not forming an opinion on the situation itself because I'm sure there's more to it than just what's in the story. But it would be helpful if the reporters and headline writers paid a little more attention and put more pertinant information higher in the story, because from where I sit "developmentally disabled" does not in any way connote "fire-setting", "sexually inappropriate", or "physically aggressive". Posted by Ken S at March 20, 2007 07:51 AM | TrackBack (0) | Category: Darn Fool Kid
One can't use the term "morally disabled" so they call it a developmental problem. Makes absolute sense from their end, and absolutely no sense in reality.
Posted by: Nightfly at March 20, 2007 09:11 AMHas anyone ever driven through/past Norco? It's one giant feed lot.
As for the PC terminology used to refer to these persons? Nothing out of the norm for the LA Times fishwrap. If I had to read something when living there, I read the OC Register.
Supporting Unlimited Possibilities, Inc.? My ass.
Has anyone seen a new show on Showtime (I think) called "Halfway House?" This article reminds me of the spots for that show.
Posted by: Susanna at March 20, 2007 09:57 AM"Opponents such as Waltz point out that among those newly qualified for a group home setting are people charged with sex crimes who are ruled incompetent to stand trial. Using that point as a rallying cry, concerned residents have held fiery demonstrations throughout the state, including one outside a group home in Phelan with registered sex offenders that was forced to shut down out of fear for its residents' safety.
"Assembly members Todd Spitzer (R-Orange) and Sharon Runner (R-Lancaster) have voiced support for legislation restricting the placement of sex offenders in group homes for the developmentally disabled."
1 - Sex offenders must register so we know where they are. 2 - If we want to house sex offenders next to you, you have no say about it. Government. It really is rocket science, isn't it?
"A spokesman for the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development acknowledged that in order to recommend the inquiry, it had to push aside internal guidelines that prohibit such an investigation because it infringes on the 1st Amendment."
!!!!
"The rules require that complaints of housing discrimination be investigated only in cases in which the alleged victim's safety has been threatened.
"No such allegation has been made against Waltz, but HUD opened an investigation into her and state investigators ordered her to respond to the complaint in detail because a preliminary review showed that someone else in the neighborhood may have made a violent threat, said HUD spokesman Larry Bush.
"Federal officials wouldn't say why the Waltz probe has continued even though she hadn't made the threat.
"'This is really just them trying to shut me up,' Waltz said."
NO KIDDING! Where is the ACLU?
"These are people who get very emotional. In their experience, if someone doesn't like them, they might hit them." This is the lawyer for one of the group home residents. It sounds like he's making Waltz's case for her.
Posted by: Laura(southernxyl) at March 20, 2007 10:51 AMI'm confused as to which sort of "housing discrimination" someone who is not a housing provider can engage in, especially by merely voicing an opinion.
Of course, I don't work for HUD, a department which seems to have no idea about any part of the Constitution, or indeed about any laws at all except those protecting it.
Posted by: Sigivald at March 20, 2007 01:15 PMThese are bureaucrats out to cover their ass. I've seen some amazing twists of laws and regulations to justify an unpopular decision....or a stupid one that they didn't want to back down on.
Posted by: The_Real_JeffS at March 20, 2007 02:36 PMI think I need to move into that group home.
Posted by: red at March 20, 2007 03:25 PMDidn't this all get settled when the Clinton Administration tried to shut up neighbors this way?
Posted by: GeorgeH at March 20, 2007 04:42 PMMrs Waltz is not alone. Phelan was the 1st home they piloted with convicted child molesters under the SOARS program (Sexual Offender Active Reorientation System). I don't see anything in this title that refers to developmentally disabled persons, so who's kidding who!!
There were 3 convicted child molesters going into the Desert Phoenix group home. Lets's call them Walter, Paul, Ed, and Julio. I was asked to investigate these persons and yes Phelan was correct that 3 of the 4 were convicted child molesters. Walter from Riverside, Paul from San Bernardino, Ed from somewhere else, and Julio was incompetent to stand trial so no info was available. Walter and Paul are living in a group home off the I -10 and poor Ed who was supposed to be this little short fat curley remains incarcerated in Porterville secure facility - why ? Guess he's not the poor short fat obese little curley Regional Center portrayed him as. He's actually 6' and 143 pounds. Doesn't exactly fit the description that the Inland Regional Center painted.
They lied time and time again to the people of Phelan.They tried every angle to shut them up including filing false accusations including attempted murder by one of the Phoenix Program employee's. When they went to the media they always used developemtally disabled people who anyone would love, however, what they actually attempted to place was convicted child molesters.
The Inland Regional Center had to scramble to find housing for these clients / offenders as a result of a supposed court order. From what we saw Norco had just finished getting a home ready to license as level 4i which is the level they set up in Phelan. Phoenix Program was set up to pay $ 17,500.00 per month per client. That's $ 205,000.00 per year per client and you wonder why California is in financial trouble. One client from Phelan was costing $ 19,956.00 per month and that was a Quote developmentally disabled female ???? That's not to mention the cost for Brand name Newly Patented psychotropic medications and Psychiatric counseling.
Norco looked like the next viable licensed home to place these 4 child molesters. Norco was going to get the Phelan Fiasco. Thank God Mrs Waltz and her neighbors stepped up to the plate and went head to head with these agencies. I agree that persons who have developmental disabilities and persons with some forms of mental illness should be in the least restrictive environment, however, when that infringes on the rights of neighbors, other clients in the home, staff members, and burden of policing on the local law officers, laws or policies need to be created.
It is WRONG to use the group home infrastructure for the truly developmentally disabled to hide the placement of the mentally ill, violent, and possibly sexual predators. I don't fault the clients because that is there personaility. I fault the system and the agencies placing them all for huge profits.
Direct Support Professional employee for these homes requires the following: 18 years of age, valid drivers license with basic liability, high school graduate or G.E.D., the ability to pass a fingerprint backround clearance, and UP to 6 months experience working with developmentally disabled persons. How can anyone expect someone with these skills to play God over mentally ill clients. It is quite apparent that mental health is being outsourced by the state of California to agencies who hire low wage unskilled employee's and get paid huge money. Someone really needs to start an investigation into the placement practices of the state as well as a full blown monetary audit of the regional centers. Fraud appears to be rampant.
It is appalling that the developmentally disabled are being used by the very agency that is supposed to protect them. Don't co-mingle the mentally ill with the developmentally disabled.
More drama to follow in the next episode.
Posted by: Giusseppie at March 21, 2007 09:39 PM