The Dedicato Sober House Keeps Coming Up On This Blog

The powerlessness of local government.

We haven't hit this topic lately, but since the City Council continues to try and find a way of appearing like they're doing something, and with both hands legally tied behind their backs, I figured why not bring it up again. This is something people here are actually talking about, and they really do deserve to be heard once in a while.

I received an interesting comment on the Dedicato Treatment Center controversy the other day. My guess is that the author had just recently discovered The Tattler, and wanted to share his perspective with us. It was posted to a month old article, which means only a few people likely saw it. So I figure we should give the new guy a deserved moment in the sun. His name is Juan, and this is what he had to say a couple of days ago:

On a few occasions, there have been many cars belonging to people from 22 W. Carter on both sides of the street that renders that portion of Carter a one-way street. During those times, I (or the other car(s)) have had to yield to one another so that we can drive-by the bottlenecked area. This is one reason why it is zoned as an R1 (residential) area. Dedicato Treatment Center is a business. It does not belong in a residential neighborhood. This area was never constructed for the purpose of having the volume of people that come and go from this place. The streets are too narrow. At least when 22 W. Carter was a small white cottage a few years back, never was that portion of Carter bottlenecked.

Secondly, Dedicato and Escobar are trying to cleverly manipulate us by playing nice with pretended transparency, and issue invitations to Dedicato to see what they are about. I say don't buy into it. If I ever decide to sell my property and I'm given low offers and/or have to disclose Dedicato as being a few doors down from me, these inconsiderate people will not recompense me of potentially several thousand dollars that my property has lost in value due to their selfish business. 

They could care less about my family and I.

Suffice to say, the Dedicato people have been inconsiderate in how they do business. They have caused a lot of stress for my neighbors and myself.  I feel much empathy for their immediate/adjacent neighbors as Dedicato is lit up like a Las Vegas business at night (a comparison brought by an unfortunate adjacent neighbor of this place). Even from a few doors down, their lighting system can be irritatingly seen from my window. The light pollution from this place takes away from the intended preservation of dark skies.

I just feel very upset that the Dedicato people have proved so inconsiderate in how they selected Carter to do its business in at our expense. I can't reiterate how unfair it is to have a business in an R1 zoned area. I own an industrial company and am forced into strictly industrial zoned areas and must comply with an array of permits and licensing. I also wonder if the burglary next door a few months ago was in any way related to Dedicato. 

This is a usually quiet neighborhood and it was a bit strange that the burglary coincided with the opening of Dedicato. That the police could not find the thieves anywhere could mean they had a place to go. That being right next door.

Lastly, I think people have the right to mental health help. I have a close family member who had problems and had to go into treatment. But I don't think I would ever trust a company such as Dedicato seeing how they did not seem to care about their very own neighbors when they opened their business up. How can a potential client trust these people to take care of them?

I would have commented on this sooner; but I was only just recently provided a link to this website by my more savvy neighbor.

Thank you, Juan. Don't be a stranger!

Recently City Attorney Highsmith announced at a Planning Commission meeting that the Dedicato Treatment Center claimed to be Supportive Housing, a special designation per Government Code Section 65582.

This unhappy law states: “Supportive Housing means housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and is linked to an onsite or offsite service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community."

“Target population” means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people.

For those of you who enjoy being thorough, click hereto see actual government verbiage on all of this. But don't go looking for anything that might take your own needs into account. As a non-addicted productive citizen with no criminal record you flat-out do not deserve any special privileges.

Next is another insightful comment that showed up recently.

Here's my question: According to the city attorney, that business on Carter said it was "supportive housing." That means it gets away with virtually no oversight or regulations.

But if you look up the code for supportive housing, it says the target population is LOW INCOME. So how does the expensive Carter place find people who qualify for low income but also have extraordinarily good insurance?

So what is up with the money you ask? As in low income? Yeah, right. More likely the ne'er-do-well offspring of privilege getting their 18th chance at life. With more opportunities to follow.

They can’t afford it? Then how is it they have insurance allowing them stay in such a (comparatively) luxurious place?

Trust me, there are very few if any poor people holed up at the Dedicato Treatment Center. The indigent junkie scholarship fund went out of business years ago. Trust me, this place is about money and absolutely nothing else.

Also: Why have so many people heard Dr. Keith Clinical Whatever boast about having clientele from wealthy families? Have you heard any of that? Many have. Can’t say who or when, I need to be discreet about that part. But Keefer seems to have one big mouth, and hopefully it will eventually bring his sober house down.

Another reader comment.

I also looked up this Dr. Keith on the CA Board of Psychology and noted that he is a Registered Psychological Assistant under supervision of Raphael Johnson. But if 5:46 PM (above) is correct in her/his post, and Dr. Keith is advertising himself as a full-blown "Clinical Psychologist," then he needs to be reported to the Board of Psychology so Dr. Keith can be held accountable for misrepresentation. It isn't right to portray oneself to clients in a dishonest manner.

Nevertheless, anyway to archive a cached version of Keith's biography from Elijah's House?

Also, I am all for getting people mental help; but in my opinion, this Dedicato place just reeks of a money-hungry entity (in which WE are paying the price for their questionable decision to open up right in the middle of a residential neighborhood... especially if I ever decide to sell my home and am required to disclose the fact a sober facility is just a few doors down from me).

These Dedicato Treatment fools are just so inconsiderate. It makes me wonder how much "care" they really give their clients. I would not spend even $2,000 for a month at that place. Especially with its completely annoying lighting that -- as someone mentioned in a different post -- resembles a Las Vegas business (and adds a tremendous amount of light pollution).

Hope the city can do more than support a bill to make these hustlers register with the city.

Like I said, people just keep talking about this issue. And as always, The Tattler listens.

City Council Meeting Tonight!
Yes, it is true. These affairs really do sneak up on you. The Art In Public Places controversy is sure to be carefully considered this evening, as it well should be. People need to know where the city will be going with this one. The volatile combination of art and money being irresistible to most.

But there is another quirky issue on tonight's docket as well. That being how exactly the city can improve on its communication efforts with its residents. Especially with another tax increase "process" kicking off in September. They will need to educate folks, as they say.

The assumption here appears to be that since there are so many people who disagree with City Hall, or even have no idea about what this center of the local universe is doing, it must be due to a problem in communication.

According to the City Council Agenda Report (link), here are all of the ways the city attempts to reach out to residents now, and hopes to add to its repertoire in the future.