Troubles at the doorstep: the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and group homes for recovering substance abusers.

• Author: Malkin, Laurie C.

Introduction

The streets are quiet and tree-lined. The homes, comfortable and well-maintained, are encircled by green lawns and separated either by picket fences or by driveways accommodating parked station wagons. Children play a game of tag at one end of the block, while mothers talk over their morning coffee at the other. The American Dream - to live in a single family-home in suburbia - appears to be alive and well.(1) Is it?

Not everyone is welcome to reside in these cozy homes. Recovering alcoholics and former drug addicts are often excluded from this vision of the community ideal. Despite community opposition however, increasing numbers of recovering substance abusers are attempting to establish group homes(2) in single-family residential neighborhoods.(3) These democratically run houses, modeled upon self-help programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous,(4) have contributed to the effective rehabilitation of former drug and alcohol abusers.(5) Recovery houses for former substance abusers are similar to group residences for the elderly, the mentally and physically disabled, AIDS patients, and troubled teenagers in that they serve individuals struggling to develop healthier, more stable, independent lifestyles.(6) Shared living arrangements located in residential neighborhoods succeed because they provide the right environment.(7) Furnishing former addicts, a population desperately in need of safe, affordable housing,(8) with a structured and supportive milieu, however, evokes immense local opposition.

Resistance to group homes for recovering substance abusers takes many forms and varies in intensity. Local opposition to these and similar programs has ranged from signed petitions(9) to acts of arson(10) but is most often manifested by the use of municipal zoning laws. By requiring special permits,(11) invoking public notice requirements,(12) and employing restrictive definitions that limit access to single-family residential neighborhoods,(13) communities are frequently able to block the development of such residences.

At first glance, some of this protest seems reasonable. Many people work and save for years so that they can move into their own home. Purchasing a house is often a family's single largest expenditure.(14) Furthermore, a home in a single-family residential neighborhood means more than the almighty dollar.(15) People move to these neighborhoods to escape crime, drugs, and similar social ills. They seek out communities that share their values and interests. To members of these neighborhoods, it seems inconsistent at best and dangerous at worst to welcome into their midst houses full of former drug addicts and alcoholics.

Many courts have shared, or at least accommodated, this exclusionary perspective.(16) Even those courts that do find exclusionary practices to exist sometimes inadequately assess and redress community efforts to discriminate against group homes from single-family residential neighborhoods.(17) By viewing neighborhood zoning issues as the distinct domain of the locality, by failing to recognize the need for proactive measures, and by refusing to look beyond narrow conceptions of the family, courts allow persistent discrimination. This inadequate judicial enforcement forces former substance abusers who lack local power to battle against firmly entrenched community structures and stereotypes. Too frequently, former substance abusers lose this struggle between community interests and individual rights.

Despite extensive community opposition and insufficient judicial enforcement, group homes for former alcohol abusers and drug addicts should be accepted in single-family residential areas and should be accommodated by local zoning laws. This issue is certainly one that, in the most literal sense, will hit some readers close to home. The claim that former drug addicts and alcoholics must be allowed to reside in group homes situated in communities that they choose is not only controversial, but is often met with a visceral response.

This Comment provides a reasoned alternative to such resistance. Part I explains precisely why it is essential that homes in single-family residential neighborhoods be available to groups of former substance abusers. It briefly describes the magnitude of the drug and alcohol problem and demonstrates how group homes provide a necessary and effective step toward addiction recovery. Indeed, it is not only appropriate to integrate group homes for recovering substance abusers into single-family residential communities - it is the law.

Part II examines the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA)(18) and includes explanations of its basic provisions, the legislative intent that motivated its passage, and the methods of stating a claim thereunder. The FHAA enunciates a solid congressional policy regarding the rights of recovering substance abusers: (1) housing discrimination against people with disabilities is unlawful;(19) (2) recovering alcoholics and former drug addicts are to be considered people with disabilities;(20) and (3) discrimination against recovering substance abusers may be manifested in many ways, including intentional acts, unintended effects, and a failure to reasonably accommodate rules and practices, even when they are necessary to afford equal housing opportunity.(21) The scope of the statute is sweeping, not only in the broad protections it affords, but also in the limited exceptions it allows.

The problem of community opposition to group homes for former addicts and inadequate judicial enforcement of the FHAA is outlined in Part III. This section first considers the "why" and "how" of municipal efforts to exclude houses for recovering substance abusers from single-family residential neighborhoods. It then describes how the judicial system has failed to address this problem. Courts often ignore clear congressional intent when interpreting the FHAA. As a result, discrimination against former drug addicts and alcoholics persists. The judicial system's reluctance has been most pronounced in its interpretation of the FHAA's definition of "reasonable accommodations."(22) Part IV concludes the analysis of fair housing rights of group homes for recovering substance abusers. It recommends an alternative application of the FHAA, one that embodies the true intent of Congress and sufficiently combats discrimination against group homes for former drug addicts and recovering alcoholics.

1. Group Homes and Addiction Recovery

   Communities may not always welcome group homes for recovering substance abusers, but they cannot dispute the fact that these programs work. The record on recovery houses is clear - experts, participants, and legislators agree that this mode of rehabilitation markedly improves individuals' abilities to free themselves from addiction and to meaningfully contribute to Society.(23) Given the magnitude and staggering consequences of America's substance abuse problem, steadfast support of this highly effective recovery program is imperative.

   1. Why Group Homes for Recovering Substance

      Abusers Are Needed

      Group homes for recovering substance abusers are necessary to combat the detrimental effects of drug abuse and alcohol dependence. Despite the War on Drugs and a national movement to stem alcohol abuse, the incidence of addiction in America remains staggeringly high.(24) Yet numbers tell only a fragment of the story.

      Addiction unquestionably places a tremendous strain on our communities. Crime and drug dependence seem inextricably linked.(25) Substance abuse drains public resources and causes diminished workforce productivity.(26) Furthermore, the correlation between substance abuse and public welfare problems is sufficiently profound to warrant aggressive policy action.

      Additional socioeconomic ramifications of drug and alcohol use are equally profound. First, substance abuse jeopardizes both physical and mental health,(27) resulting in a more fragile population and contributing to rising health-care costs.(28) Second, addiction and homelessness are closely connected.(29) Third, substance abuse encourages dependency in other ways, including dependency on other people and on public benefits programs.(30) Finally, on a less tangible level, drug and alcohol addiction signifies a loss of traditional values(31) and perpetuates a deep-seated sense of wide-spread social disorder.(32)

      A distinct lack of adequate, effective rehabilitation programs exacerbates the enormity of the substance abuse problem. Although one recent estimate by experts suggests that approximately twenty-three million Americans require treatment for drug and alcohol abuse, our nation can treat only 800,000 annually.(33) Among the general population of addicts, eighty percent of those in treatment relapse. In contrast, those who live in group homes for recovering substance abusers are highly likely to achieve their goal of sobriety. Among group home residents, eighty percent remain clean and sober.(34)

      Residential treatment significantly reduces the incidence of crime and other social ills.(35) It may, in fact, save money by reducing the social costs of drug use. One expert recently testified before a Senate Committee that

      [v]irtually all economic measures show that the burden of crime and other economic consequences of drug abuse are lower after treatment than before. Costs of drug abuse to law abiding citizens fall by about 20%, costs to victims decline by about 30%, criminal justice costs fall about 24% and the costs of theft fall about 11%.(36)

      These statistics provide only a glimmer of the cost-effectiveness of community living programs for drug addicts and alcoholics. First, group homes for recovering substance abusers do not cost the federal government much money. A typical project receives one small, short-term, start-up loan from the federal government, amounting to no more than $4000.(37) Thereafter, it remains a wholly self-run, self-supporting...