BY GEORGE HAVRANEK
The recent actions by
Miracle City at 2800 Bruckner
Boulevard and Carnegie
Hill in Community Board 11
to broaden the scope of substance
abuse treatments in
predominately residential
neighborhoods have been
met with community resistance.
It is necessary to preserve
the fi nancial/ emotional
investments and quality of
life of community residents
in residential areas; however,
changes to stagnant methodologies
of failure that accompanies
these lucrative
substance abuse treatment
businesses is long overdue.
In order to accomplish these
daunting goals stark oppositions
to Miracle City, Carnegie
Hill and any investors attempting
to establish similar businesses
must loudly resonate
throughout our communities.
Placements of substance
abuse treatment facilities in
residential communities are
apt to devalue home valuations
and quality of life. From
a logical perspective, if these
services had a positive affect
on a community there would
be inter-community bidding
wars for these facilities. Realtors
would use them as selling
points. Envision the advertisement
header: ‘Home for Sale,
Great Location, Close to Substance
Abuse Treatment Facility’.
There is a valid reason
substance abuse facilities do
not provoke bidding wars or
real estate ad campaigns.
A 2014 study in The Journal
of Substantial Real Estate,
Volume 6 Number 1
showed 8%-17% devaluation
in homes located near a drug
treatment facility. Homes located
near facilities primarily
focused on opioid abuse
were at the higher end of the
devaluation scale. The study
revealed homes located near
a drug treatment facility (within
a ¼ mile) sell at a faster rate
than the typical area home.
This suggests the increased
likelihoods of potential mass
exoduses of residents living
near drug treatment facilities.
A mass exodus scenario will
open the doors for opportunistic
investors, potentially increase
the number of absentee
landlords, bring a dynamic
of transient tenancy, and devalue
the quality of life in the
neighborhood.
Recent studies that covered
multiple states and a
wide range of communities
strongly showed a corollary
between absentee landlords
and a negative quality of life.
Homes with absentee landlords
are more likely to be neglected
and become points of
neighborhood nuisances than
those with an owner living on
premise. To address this concern
multiple municipalities
have instituted legislation that
force absentee landlords to
be responsible for the condition
of their properties and to
some degree the behaviors
of its’ inhabitants. For example,
in 2017 the city council
of Reading, PA unanimously
adopted Bill 41-2017 requiring
any local property owner living
outside a 25-mile radius of
the city to hire a local property
manager. The property manager,
free of fi nancial obligation,
is authorized to make decisions
related to quality of life
and emergency issues directly
related to their premises.
New York City has no such
law as witnessed by the past
problems with the Clarence
Avenue nuisance house. The
Clarence Avenue dwelling was
listed on various web sites for
short-term rental and is a stark
example of the problems that
can arise when a property
owner is only fi nancially invested
in a community.
Neighborhood stability and
school quality are major determinants
in a young family’s
decision on where to settle. It
is reasonable to suggest substance
abuse facilities should
not be located near schools,
playgrounds, or other child
friendly venues. Admittedly,
the limited research in this
specifi c area suggests further
studies could be warranted.
Current studies indicated
there is a distinct possibility
of negative affects, others
show benign or neutral affects;
however, I have not uncovered
any study suggesting
the location of substance
abuse facilities near child
friendly environments as a
positive occurrence. When it
comes to our children we often
take a careful approach
and tend to err on the side of
caution.
Children cannot be shielded
from every societal evil; therefore
it is paramount they are
made aware of and educated
about potential dangers that
lurk in the shadows. Age appropriate
curriculums about
the perils of Substance Abuse
should be incorporated at
early levels of education. Municipalities
should introduce an
effective series of Public Service
campaigns tailored to create
awareness about the dangers
of substance abuse. This
strategy was proved effective
against tobacco use. According
to the Center for Disease
Control in the early 2000s tobacco
usage among those under
twenty one reached a all
time lows. A subsequent 2016
study showed a slight uptick in
tobacco usage due to the introduction
of the e-cigarette
and hookah into the mainstream.
Despite this change a
clear linear decline in cigarette
use remained. It appears that
awareness and education are
essential ingredients in this
successful recipe. This fi nding
about tobacco usage suggests
that we must keep our foot on
the accelerator to increase the
momentum required to safe
guard our children against the
perils of substance abuse.
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, N 68 OVEMBER 15-21, 2019 BTR
Although in total agreement
with the aforementioned the
principle reason for opposition
to these facilities/businesses is
they are unlikely to help a majority
of the drug addicted individuals
dependent on these
services. Simply stated, the
current model for drug treatment
is largely ineffective and
a paradigm shift in the area of
substance abuse treatment is
desperately needed. Favoring
additions of these types of facilities/
businesses fosters an
ineffective model that in the
long term potentially harms
both addict and community
while creating pathways for
opportunistic investors.
According to a 2015 report
in Forbes magazine the drug
treatment industry had a valuation
of 35 billion dollars. According
to the World Health
Organization and National Institute
of Health, an approximate
30% success rate exists
in an industry that has no uniform,
widely accepted measurable
metric for success. A
30% success rate is an all-star
performance in major league
baseball; however, that is quite
unacceptable in the domains
of science, medicine and human
services. This begs the
question: Why do we continue
on this pathway of possible failure?
The mainstream perception
of a lifetime of complete
and total abstinence being the
lone measure of success further
complicates matters. The
one-size fi ts all approach to
treating addictions has contributed
to the low success
rates in treating addiction.
Many experts concur that
a 5 to 7 day inpatient detox
model followed by elective
outpatient care is a dismal
failure. According to the
Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration,
minimally a 28-day monitored
inpatient detox/counseling
period followed by many
years of multi-disciplined outpatient
therapy is needed for
a proper chance at successful
recovery. The setting for these
services should be tailored to
avoid the stigma fueled embarrassments
tethered to addiction.
Multiple studies in
the area of substance abuse
treatment have concluded
that ‘Program’ drop out rates
are profoundly infl uenced by
a patients’ comfort and satisfaction.
Under the condition
of total anonymity four area
residents were independently
phone interviewed for this article.
This group shares the following
commonalities. All are
recovering opioid addicts, all
relapsed at least once during
their rehabs, all have strong
support systems, all have
been to both local and out of
area treatment facilities and
all have been clean and sober
for more than three years.
These individuals unanimously
agreed that avoidance
of recognition induced embarrassments
made small local
treatment facilities in residential
areas unfavorable choices.
They strongly believed their
anonymity, comfort, and
chance at success would be
best served in an institutional
campus like setting away from
residential areas.
Placing the current ineffective
traditional substance
abuse treatment model on a
collision course with progressive
methodology that brings
hope and a paradigm shift
will be met with anticipated
skepticisms. A 2003 study
conducted by Yale University
revealed that it is extremely
diffi cult to sway leaders and
policy makers to implement
empirically validated treatments.
The uncertainty of the
opportunity cost affi liated with
any paradigm shift is the primary
obstacle. Overall cost
is not a typical component of
research models designed to
determine effectiveness. Scientists
are not accountants, fi -
nancial analysts, or actuaries
it is the duty of our leaders and
policy makers to determine the
risk –reward and implement
necessary changes in the areas
of human services.
In 2018 a grant from the
National Institute of Drug
Abuse funded the creation of a
mathematical model by Stanford
University. This model
is aimed to determine the effi
cacy of current policies used
to fi ght the opioid epidemic in
the United States. According
to data assembled by Stanford
University current policies
will not have a viable affect
of decreasing the number
of opioid related deaths in our
nation. A major factor is that
policy aimed at reducing the
number of prescription related
opioid deaths resulted in an increase
of illegal heroin related
deaths. The research concluded
that no current policy
utilized in the United States
would substantially reduce
the number of opioid related
deaths in the upcoming 5 to
10 year period. However, a
25% reduction in prescriptions
in conjunction with extrapolation
and expansion of policies
could result in a decrease in
opioid related deaths beginning
in 2026. The researchers
concluded, “ It took more than
a decade to prescribe our way
into this crisis…. It will take
more than a decade to treat
our way out.” The Stanford
research team is hopeful that
their work will raise awareness
and be a springboard for
policymakers to take vigorous
actions in our fi ght to combat
this serious epidemic that has
confounded and paralyzed
our society. It is time for us to
wakeup, unify, and get out of
this state of stuck.
The continuance of current
modalities and expecting
better results is at best naïve
and at worst unethical. Instead
of asking what do we have to
lose, we should look at what
we can gain? The answer is
twofold: Sweeping reforms
can potentially save both the
lives of more substance abusers
and protect our residential
communities from unjust and
unwarranted devaluations. In
addition, an amplifi ed awareness
and age appropriate
anti-drug campaigns could
safe guard our children.
The altruistic individuals
motivated to rescue people
from the darkness of substance
abuse and those motivated
to preserve their community’s
quality of life should
be tightly unifi ed. In a choir
of unison both groups should
loudly shout “ It is time for
change”. This is an epidemic
like situation in which all of
society would benefi t from
necessary changes. The preciousness
and sanctity of human
life and the importance
of a community’s quality of life
transcends words; any actions
that inhibit either are intolerable.
Political leaders to gauge a
community’s interest and fortitude
use the attendances at local
civic association meetings.
The continued large turnouts
show our elected offi cials that
we possess the fortitude and
resolve needed to confront
adversity. The next meeting of
the Spencer Estate Civic Association
is Wednesday, November
20 at 7:30 p.m. In our
initial meet the candidate event
Ruth Papazian will be the keynote
speaker. Papazian, the
‘From Here For Here Candidate’,
is a longtime Bronx resident
and a prime candidate for
the 14th congressional district
seat held by Representative
Alexandria Ocasio -Cortez.
Any area homeowner or renter
interested in membership to
the all inclusive Spencer Estate
Civic Association in box
George Havranek on Facebook
or send-email with subject
matter Spencer Estate to
gghh55@aol.com. If we want
to “keep and reap the blessings”
of our fi ne quality of life
“we must undergo the fatigue
of supporting it”.
Remember: ‘Inclusion
brings solutions’
link
link