What Do YOU Think About Newport Beach’s Crackdown on Rehab Homes?

My goodness, look what I found in The Register this morning! It looks like Newport Beach may finally crack down on all the rehab homes that had been popping up all over town. The new set of restrictions, which have been in the works since officials in April temporarily banned new sober-living and drug-treatment houses from opening, address residents’ concern about the estimated 100 rehab homes and how they apparently destroy community character.

OK, so what exactly are these new rules? First off, the new ordinances would retroactively require most rehab homes to obtain a permit that imposes special conditions, perhaps including parking and noise restrictions. Homes that fail to comply may face closure. Also, the new rules would bar most new rehab homes from opening anywhere except for areas zoned for multi-family residences. Such areas constitute only about 1,000 acres of Newport Beach, according to Newport Beach Mayor Steve Rosansky.

So how does this sound to you? What do you think about Newport’s proposed new restrictions on rehab homes? Are they finally taking care of what’s been a glut of eyesores all over town? Or is Newport Beach going too far in preventing these homes from providing needed services to recovering drug addicts?

I want to hear what you have to say. Would these new restrictions hinder efforts to provide help for these addicts? Or will they provide help for local residents who want to keep their neighborhoods clean?

Go ahead. Make my day. Have your say.

  2 comments for “What Do YOU Think About Newport Beach’s Crackdown on Rehab Homes?

  1. Dan Chmielewski
    December 7, 2007 at 4:58 pm

    here’s what Jon Fleischman thought abotu it in this Red County blog post:

    I just read with dismay a story by Jeff Overley in the Orange County Register that, frankly, is not up to the standards that I expect from Overley and the Register. The gist of it is that Scott Baugh, as a business consultant, represents the interests of CRC Health Group in certain matters. CRC owns, among other sober living facilities, the Sober Living By The Sea facilities in Newport Beach, where there has been some controversy surrounding the existance of these homes, and recent actions by the City Council to, in essence, attempt to regulate them out of business.

    I am trying to figure out how Scott, representing a business client of this nature, is newsworthy. No, wait — I see where in the story, Overley implies some sort of hypocracy because Scott apparently opposed a ballot measure back in 2000 that, in part, allows for convicted drug offenders to spend to spend more time in local rehab homes instead of behind bars. Um, what am I missing here? What is the nexus between a broad policy matter before the people of California, and Scott trying to work out differences between CRC and Newport Beach? Frankly, there isn’t one. I guess you could take the next step, and assume that there would be no story here is Scott was representing, say, the City of Newport Beach, and was working to drive CRC out of town. Somehow that would be more “Republican”?

    By the logic used here, what if Scott goes out and tries to secure construction bond monies for Orange County? Well, he opposed the very bond measures that make funds available. Does that mean he has abandoned his principles? That he is a hyprocrite? Of course not.

    Let’s make a couple of very important points here, and then we’ll circle back to the article and a conclusion.

    First and foremost — Scott Baugh truly is an awesome Chairman of our Party. As the OC GOP’s Second Vice Chairman, I get to see Scott in action. The skills and contacts that he brings to the position are formidable. While our party is a large one, and a great many people collectively are responsible for its good health and accomplishments, a fair amount of credit needs to go to the captain of the team. Scott is our leader, and he is a damned good one.

    The second point that I want to make is that the Orange County Republican Party has never paid its Chairman or officers. Which is to say that Scott volunteers his time, and a lot of it, to the GOP — because he is passionate about his beliefs and he loves the Republican Party. That said, Scott has to earn a living, and he does so by working with a fair number of clients, CRC Health Group among them, to sort out their issues, and help them navigate through hurdles. Never once have I ever seen Scott inappropriate use his office as Chairman on behalf of a client. On the contrary, it is the income Scott earns from his business that allows him to be the Chairman of the County GOP.

    As for the article in the paper today, I sure hope that the ombudsman over at the Register, and perhaps an editor or two, seriously look at this story. And as for Overley… Jeff, you may want to look back to the origin of your sourcing on this story, and figure out if maybe you got “played” by someone. I was also disappointed that Martin Wisckol, who knows better, gave this story even more digital ink on his blog.

  2. December 7, 2007 at 5:52 pm

    Isn’t it requisite of an area that it actually POSSESS character before said character can be destroyed?

    If anything, those homes bring some character to Newport.

    Or at least characters.

    Nothin’ but love for ya, Willie! Peace!

Comments are closed.