WILDCATS REMOVE GRAFFITI
Councilman Mark Gjonaj thanked the Wildcats, a program he funds
through NYC Council, for listening to complaints from his 13th
Council District constituents and cleaning and painting over graffi
ti under the Trestle on Muliner Avenue.
Photo courtesy of Councilman Mark Gjonaj’s Offi ce
BRONX TIMES REPORTER, J BTR UNE 14-20, 2019 73
BY GEORGE HAVRANEK
Authors Note: As a 63 year
resident of the Spencer Estate
neighborhood I can attest that
substance abuse has been a
small part of the current Community
Board 10 footprint for
over 50 years. Proper substance
abuse treatments are essential
to the welfares of both the individual
and community. The
harmful and fatal arrows of
substance abuse have pierced
the hearts of many families
throughout our community.
Thankfully, my family and I
have been spared the horror,
hurt, and anguish of the fatal
arrow.
Currently, I see the development
of a ‘Community Conundrum’
that is tearing our
tightly woven fabric of unity.
The following fact based piece
will hopefully inspire repair
to that fabric and provoke
thought and awareness that
could help preserve the quality
of life in our communities and
most importantly save lives
of those snared in the awful
clutches of addiction. To paraphrase
founder father’s John
Dickinson’s words in the Boston
Gazette circa 1768, “Join
hands…by uniting we stand by
dividing we fall.” The choice is
ours….
Time To Just Say No
The recent action by Miracle
City at 2800 Bruckner Boulevard
to broaden their scope
of substance abuse treatments
in a predominately residential
neighborhood is being met
with community resistance. It
is paramount to preserve the
fi nancial/ emotional investments
and quality of life of
community residents in lowdensity
areas while promoting
changes to a stagnant methodology
of failures that encompasses
the lucrative substance
abuse treatment business.
In order to accomplish these
daunting goals stark oppositions
to Miracle City 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 a 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 potential
problems that can arise
when an absentee landlord 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
a single study showing
substance abuse facilities being
located near child friendly
environments as a positive occurrence
for a community.
When it comes to our children
we usually 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
21 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.
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 that depend
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
Continued on page 84