Acton News IndexThis story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press on Wednesday, May 4, 2005.
By LISA WAHLA HOWARD
Valley Press Staff Writer
Counties should have a say when an individual decides to buy a single-family home and rent space to up to six recovering drug addicts, said L.A. County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.
But a state law passed more than 20 years ago takes that say-so out of local governments' hands, as long as the facility operator sticks to housing six or fewer people.
The issue caused a stir in the Antelope Valley three years ago, when a group called the Achates Foundation operated two group homes on Lancaster Boulevard for recovering alcoholics and addicts. In that case, the city succeeded in limiting the foundation's activities by enforcing zoning regulations, because the large homes were housing more than six people each.
In recent weeks in the Santa Clarita Valley, Antonovich's staff has been involved in a similar series of community meetings over an apparent group-home setup in upscale Stevenson Ranch.
There, a woman purchased three homes, including one that had four sets of bunk beds and a coin-operated clothes washer and dryer, Antonovich aide Bob Haueter said.
"This threatens the individual neighborhood, putting at risk the children that live there, and it has a dramatic effect on the property value," Haueter said. "If you live next door to the group home, and you have to disclose that to a potential buyer, you're paying a personal cost in your equity being impacted by the location of this home."
In a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Antonovich urges the governor to repeal Senate Bill 2274, which in 1984 began prohibiting local governments from treating rehab homes differently than any other single-family home, as long as they housed fewer than seven rehab residents.
"My office has been inundated with requests from homeowners throughout my district who demand the county protect them from such intrusion into their neighborhoods," Antonovich said in the letter, dated April 21. "I agree that these facilities are incompatible with single family residences.
"Parents, law enforcement officers and school officials are all concerned about the safety of residents, particularly children, who live or attend school near these facilities. The location of these homes also has a devastating financial impact on the value of nearby homes."
State Sen. George Runner, who served in the state Assembly during the Achates Foundation controversy, agrees with Antonovich that local government should have control over the placement of group homes. But the Democrats in the Legislature have shot down numerous previous attempts to alter the legislation, he said.
"It's unfortunately like a Holy Grail to Democrats," said Runner, R-Lancaster. "I applaud the supervisor's concern and letter to the governor; unfortunately, we've all been there, and I agree with him, but it seems they don't want to let go of this issue."
Runner should know - at a press conference regarding the Achates Foundation homes, he said he would introduce legislation to limit the number of group homes that can be placed within a given neighborhood. But after researching the issue further, Runner decided such a bill would be too difficult to get through the Legislature.
Runner now encourages local governments to use public pressure and consider taking legal action against the state to reassert their rights.
"I'm suggesting these days that local government should sue the state for not allowing them their rights as a local government to control their zoning and land use," he said.
Additionally, Runner is concerned that in some cases, the group home operator is in actuality operating a real estate scheme to acquire pricey properties financed through rent from multiple tenants, or through state subsidies when the tenants are minors.
"Many of them are like real estate scams, where the individuals get state money and put people in them like boarders, and you have little hotels in the middle of somebody's community," Runner said. "And in a few years, they sell the homes and make the profit. The taxpayers have set them up in this housing deal."
Haueter agreed with Runner's contention.
"It's a way to buy a piece of property with a very high mortgage," he said. "You charge enough rent to cover that mortgage by bringing into a residential family home six individuals paying $800 to $1,000 in rent, it helps cover a big mortgage payment."
A group home operator might look to buy in an expensive neighborhood because of simple mathematics, Haueter said. If real estate appreciates 10% in a given year, a $200,000 home would produce a $20,000 profit, while an $800,000 home would produce an $80,000 profit