Recovery Homes

The Times is to be commended for its recent articles (Oct. 21-22) calling attention to the rip-off of residents by the owners or managers of some sober-living homes. Taking advantage of addict-alcoholics, who are desperately trying to recover from their disease, is one of the basest examples of human greed. It’s also a shocking social reality that needs exposing.

However, the articles failed to clearly delineate certain aspects of a complex situation. The difference between alcohol-and drug-recovery facilities and sober-living or alcohol-free living centers was not defined. Many alcohol- and drug-recovery facilities do receive federal, state or county funding, which is disbursed through county offices. These programs are licensed and monitored by county inspectors for programming, health and safety conditions.

Beacon House in San Pedro, which The Times lauded as “an oasis for recovering addicts,” is a fine example of a program that is partially county funded and is monitored regularly.

On the other hand, sober-living homes or centers are usually residences which have been converted to house recovering addict-alcoholics who are trying to make their way back into society, often after having completed alcohol- or drug-recovery programs. A few may receive basic start-up funds. Those that do are county monitored for a period of up to two years. However, most of the sober-living homes referred to in your articles are simply residences in which a number of recovering addict-alcoholics live together sharing expenses and responsibilities. They do not get public funding and are not subject to licensing restrictions.

You made reference to sober-living homes operating without licenses and permits. The implication was that the county should be responsible for checking them. The articles failed to note that there are 88 independent cities within the county, each with individual ordinances regarding business, occupancy, etc. Such matters are an issue of local city authority and the county has no jurisdiction over them.

As chairman of the Los Angeles County Commission on Alcoholism, I have asked the county counsel for a clarification as to what action county authorities may legally take regarding sober-living facilities that do not require state or county licensing.

GENE WEBSTER, Chairman

Commission on Alcoholism