Submitted by Anne Boston Parish
Commentary on Proliferation of Sober Living – Transitional Housing
Thirty-five (35) years ago, the cities of Palm Beach and Delray Beach in the state of Florida never anticipated the now, present overall change in their cities’ landscape and the proliferation of sober living homes. These city officials now cite, “There are many realistic worries secondary to the proliferation of sober living homes that have been allowed to develop over the past thirty-five (35) years in our city.” Residents further cite, “No one ever anticipated the long-term ill-fated consequences, and the overall negative impact, these [sober homes] would have on our city today.” Much of the ill-fated consequences are cited by the city officials as hundreds of sober homes fill their city, and “No one knows how many sober homes exist because there is no certification and only city approval if they want to house more than three (3) unrelated people.” This critical data is cited in a retrospective study by The New York Times, June 20, 2017, “Haven for Recovering Addicts Now Profiting from Their Relapse”, by Lizette Alvaraz. This author cites the rapid proliferation of these [sober homes] is secondary to having had no governess, licensure, oversight and regulations to monitor the start-up of these businesses in their city. This proliferation has occurred over the last thirty-five (35) years and now as cited in this article, “The town’s soundtrack is unrelenting siren wails. With six to 12 people living in the house, noise is unavoidable. Property crime was up 19 percent from 2015. The ‘new homeless’ – as police call addicts who get booted from sober homes once insurance money runs out – are living on the street.”
This is only one example of transitional housing and the use of any home as a business within any city. It is my opinion, had the cities of Palm Beach and Delray Beach used their governess thirty-five (35) years ago to implement oversight and regulations, there may not have been the proliferation of sober living homes. Presently, the lack of Palm Beach and Delray Beach’s preservation is an object of concern for their local permanent residents. These residents are now limited with local ordinance tools, such as zoning, to control the proliferation of more sober homes; but trying to undo the past, and establish zoning maps, seems somewhat difficult, and are augmented in the form of lawsuits. It appears it may take another generation of concerned residents to return their city to what used to be a small beach community. In reference to our beach community [Coronado], in 2013 and 2016, our elected officials changed our City Planning Map, by allowing any business, in any form of operational status, such as a non-profit business, to be operational within residential zones. They [City Council] abducted the use of residential zones within Coronado, and converted all residential zones into business, commercial or industrial use.
It is my opinion that this 2013 and 2016 vote and change within our zoning map, could be reversed or repealed before Coronado begins to face long term ill-fated consequences with the proliferation of all forms of transitional housing. To date, my effort to seek answers and clarity has been met without any form of communication from City Council. It seems our Council members have gone “dark” without acknowledging that they have an obligation to consider the huge disservice this vote in 2013 and 2016 will do to our community.
Last November, we held a local and national election; in my research I noticed a low percentage of Coronado voters. This low percentage may be due to the large number of Coronado homes that are being used as rentals or are used as second homes for many homeowners, but it may be due to residential apathy. US Census Bureau statistics would reflect, and according to 2014-2017 population demographics, Coronado has a population between 24,447-24,910 residents. However, out of this number of residents, only 4,752 residents voted in the 2016 election. If I am correct, this number would be consistent with only 19% of our community casting a vote for an elected official. I would like to believe that our Council members have a vested interest in the prospective outlook of our city; but presently, it is my opinion their lack of dialogue is a declaration of their underlying apathy to engage in an open dialogue/public hearing to reverse or repeal a 2013 and 2016 vote? Another thought: are these Council members not engaging in dialogue unless they are forced to defend a lawsuit to address this vote? I really hope not! I have never heard of a city policy that forbids dialogue, but their [City Council] silence speaks volumes for their position in favor of transitional housing. In 2013 and 2016, I do not recall a public hearing to openly discuss transitional housing and its long term consequences to Coronado. Another thought, for those in our community who are noisy, with negative chatter or have loudly expressed their support for transitional housing, are they only passing through Coronado with no vested interest in the long-term preservation of our homes and community? The 2013 and 2016 vote, if not reversed or repealed will forever change the landscape of Coronado. I also believe this issue will be a talking point that will forever polarize our community. Do not gauge your opinion by my writing, or my opinion; please look at our long-term community outlook and the retrospective study from the cities of Palm Beach and Delray Beach. If you want to do something good for our city, speak up; if you don’t speak up, the permanent residents of Coronado will be forever asking the same question, similar to those who now reside in the cities of Palm Beach and Delray Beach; what happened to our beach community?
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Boston Parish
