Adelanto’s Dilemma : U.S. Sues Desert Town for Rejecting a Shelter for Homeless Mentally Ill in Residential Area

The U.S. Justice Department is charging that this little Mojave Desert town has finally found something it doesn’t want: a shelter for the homeless mentally ill.

Adelanto likes gambling. It welcomes prisons. It is willing to take garbage from other cities. It wants an international airport.

But Adelanto does not want mentally ill people living in its residential neighborhoods, according to a housing discrimination suit filed in federal court in Los Angeles by the Justice Department.

Adelanto city officials deny the discrimination allegation, contending that the decision they made that prompted the suit was based on legitimate zoning concerns.

At issue in the suit, which could have nationwide significance, are the circumstances under which local governments may legally bar facilities for the handicapped from residential areas. The suit is the first of its kind on behalf of the mentally ill, according to Justice Department officials. It is based on the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act that, as of March 12, 1989, outlawed housing discrimination based on handicaps.

Federal attorneys charge that the Adelanto City Council acted illegally last August when it denied a permit that a boarding house for homeless mentally ill people needed to continue operating in a residential neighborhood.

“The City Council denied the application . . . because of the handicap of the residents of the home,” the suit charges.

It asks the court to prevent the city from closing Lillie Ruff’s Homeless Shelter, which houses eight mentally ill residents who were referred there by San Bernardino County officials. The suit, filed March 18, also seeks punitive damages “because of the intentional and willful nature of the defendant’s conduct.”

Ruff, a 42-year-old widow and licensed vocational nurse, opened the home in 1987 and was subsequently told by Adelanto officials that she needed a “conditional-use permit” to continue operating the boarding home in her neighborhood of mostly single-family houses. Adelanto zoning laws allow city officials to grant permission for boarding homes to operate in such neighborhoods.

But when Ruff applied for the permit before the Adelanto Planning Commission last July, neighbors of the home presented city officials with a petition with 38 signatures stating: “We do not want the mentally disturbed right in the middle of a family housing area with many children.”

Ruff, who lives at the shelter with her three small nephews, dismisses that concern. “They said they feared for the children, and I have more children than anyone on the block,” she said.

The Planning Commission turned down the request for a permit to operate the home and last August the City Council rejected Ruff’s appeal.

Adelanto officials deny that their rejection of the permit was discriminatory and insist they had merely enforced zoning laws prohibiting commercial activities in residential areas.

“We have no problem with mentally handicapped people . . . if they’re put in an area that is zoned for that,” said Mayor Edward Dondelinger in an interview.

The issue of protecting handicapped people from discrimination in housing is complicated. Currently, under California law, facilities licensed by the state to give care and supervision to six or fewer mentally handicapped clients generally cannot be barred by local authorities from operating in residential neighborhoods. But facilities with more than six clients are not afforded such protection under state law, nor are boarding homes, such as Ruff’s Homeless Shelter, that provide food and housing but do not have state licenses for care and supervision.

Moreover, the state’s fair housing regulations--which cover the physically handicapped--do not cover the mentally ill or retarded, according to John Castello, chief counsel for the state Department for Fair Employment and Housing.

The federal Fair Housing Amendments Act is an attempt to extend protection against discrimination in housing to all handicapped people, no matter the nature of their disabilities.

Leonard Rubenstein, legal director of the Mental Health Law Project, a public interest legal firm in Washington, said of the Adelanto suit: “It is important across the country because . . . many local governments either don’t understand what their obligations are or fail to abide by their obligations (under the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act).”

The remote town of Adelanto, 90 miles northeast of Los Angeles and with a population that state officials put at 5,000 (town fathers claim 10,000) would seem an unlikely focal point for such a dispute. In its quest for financial growth over the last 15 years, Adelanto has been less than choosy about enterprises it was willing to welcome. For example:

* In the mid-1970s, the city tried unsuccessfully to legalize Las Vegas-style casino gambling within its boundaries through a state initiative. That dream is still alive, but Adelanto makes do with only a legal card room, called the Hi-Desert Casino.

* In the mid-1980s, Adelanto tried to acquire a maximum-security 1,500-inmate state prison to create jobs. State correctional officials called the project off after they were advised that jet fighters shrieking out of George Air Force Base--adjacent to the city--would be an invitation to an inmate lawsuit over intolerable noise. Since then, Adelanto has managed to attract a 380-inmate facility for parole violators, which is under construction.

* City officials say they currently are negotiating with several companies to haul in garbage from other municipalities for conversion to energy and other byproducts.

* The city hopes to create a “Hi Desert International Airport” on the site of George Air Force Base when that facility closes in 1992. Community leaders have invited aeronautic industry officials to town to discuss the plan.

Former City Councilman Gus Ronnebeck, a retired Air Force sergeant, is a booster of such projects, but an opponent of Ruff’s Homeless Shelter. He and his wife, Margaret, were among those who signed the petition against it.

The Ronnebecks become angry at the mere mention of Ruff’s pink one-story triplex, which is directly across the street from their ranch-style home.

Gus Ronnebeck said of the boarding home: “I think you should have that in a commercial area. It should be operated as a commercial business.”

The Ronnebecks admit that none of the residents of Ruff’s shelter has ever bothered them.

“We personally have not had them come to our house,” said Margaret Ronnebeck. “We have loaded guns here and if they come here they’re going to be carried away.”

Such fear of the mentally ill is based on myth, maintains Edward Garner, coordinator of the San Bernardino County Mental Health Department program that refers clients to Ruff’s shelter.

“They don’t have any more potential for violence than the ordinary citizen, probably less,” said Garner, a clinical psychologist.

Opponents of the shelter who spoke before the City Council last August complained of behavior by the boarding home residents that they found annoying rather than violent.

“(They) walk right into your yard,” complained Elsie Allen. “They open up the gate and walk right in and if they get hurt, then they can sue us.”

Irl Peterson, whose elderly mother lives across the street from the home, said, “I see these patients numerous times in the open fields staring out in a manner which is (not) befitting of a normal person.”

When the City Council heard Ruff’s appeal of the Planning Commission decision last August, it was warned by City Atty. Ivan L. Hopkins that, under federal law, it could not legally consider the mental handicaps of the boarding house residents in deciding whether to grant a permit for the home. To avoid unlawful discrimination, he advised, the council must approve or deny the request for a permit as though it were considering a boarding house for ordinary residents.

Nevertheless, during the deliberations, Mayor Dondelinger expressed concern over the behavior of residents in such shelters that had operated in the city previously.

“(The) people have been unsupervised,” he complained, “(and) have gone around to the stores and caused all kinds of problems and we have very little control over what happens in any of these places . . . .”

The council voted 4 to 1 to deny the permit. Councilman Frank Harris cast the dissenting vote because he disagreed with the decision of the majority to allow Ruff to continue to operate even during a 90-day period for appeal.

Ruff subsequently complained to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and federal attorneys brought suit. The shelter has remained open.

Dondelinger vowed to fight the suit. “We can’t let them take businesses and put them beside houses. We can’t let the zoning go askew.”