 |
Editor's ViewpointMeditations Of A Minnesota Mossback |
Dispelling Myths and Fears— and Other Stormy Subjects
As I settle down to my computer the morning after the storm in Centerville— and there have been several this week, of various varieties— I note that The Citizen has received a few less-thancomplimentary letters from out Minneapolis way concerning the reaction of the Hunter’s Trail neighborhood to the news that a corporate foster home was moving in.
We don’t usually publish letters from folks outside our distribution area, but I will say that I am saddened by those knee-jerk responses.
It’s a lot easier to blame the reactions of Centerville residents on intolerance than to try to understand their feelings of helplessness at the absence of any meaningful communication regarding Zumbro House’s newest foster home in their neighborhood.
But is it legal to tell the neighbors?
An article appearing last weekend in the Minneapolis Star Tribune states that it is not legal to require that neighbors be told. Roberta Olheim—the state ombudsman for people with mental and developmental disabilities— was attributed with saying that the act of requiring Zumbro House to notify other residents of its clients’ presence would violate the federal Fair Housing Act.
A 2007 study published by Dr. Allison L. Zippay through the American Psychiatric Association entitled “Psychiatric Residences: Notification, NIMBY, and Neighborhood Relations,” states that mental health administrators have the legal authority under the 1988 federal Fair Housing Amendments and the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act to bypass “the notification of neighbors when establishing shared, supervised houses and apartments for persons with severe mental illness.”
But they don’t have to.
It appears that federal law leaves the decision of notification to mental health professionals, who the report states are divided on the issue.
Although many of them believe that notification violates the privacy of mentally ill individuals and fuels hostility among their future neighbors, others prefer to schedule meetings in advance because they believe the notification process “facilitates community education and integration and diffuses opposition.”
The study examined 169 supervised homes in seven states. About half of the homes (45%) notified the neighbors; half did not (55%). Not surprisingly, the study found that opposition was significantly more likely to occur when the neighbors knew about the facility in advance. As in Centerville, those concerns typically centered on safety, behavior of clients, and property values.
Administrators who notified neighbors, however, appeared more focused on developing long-term relationships with the community.
They described “their outreach as a means for dispelling myths and fears about mental illness and special needs housing, including frequently expressed concerns about safety and quality of life.”
Call notification a litmus test, if you will—possibly a test that could have saved Zumbro House and Centerville from some very unfortunate PR.
Dr. Zippay’s study concludes that opposition generated in holding early discussions with the neighbors “is seldom lasting.” That probably comes as no surprise to those providers who already consider communication with the neighbors an important element in the long-term integration of their clients in a desirable residential setting.
They are the ones, Zippay’s study concludes, who are most likely to continue building healthy social relationships between their clients and the neighborhood over the long haul.
Had Zumbro House chosen to hold a neighborhood meeting on their own terms, perhaps those “myths and fears” could have been addressed productively. And had they chosen to pull a building permit as required, the story may have had a happier ending.
Open communication in government is always a good choice in the long term. Even when the law says you don’t have to tell.