|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3940
|
|
|
|
|
|
VETOES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
category than single family residences, by local
authorities, acting at the behest of organized community
groups opposed to having these homes in their midst. By
requiring that a group home for the mentally retarded be
considered the same as a single family residence, the
bill would eliminate, at one stroke, the legal impediment
to their establishment in any neighborhood.
The bill would also remove the ability of a
community effectively to voice its concern over the
establishment of such a home in its midst, by eliminating
a proper forum for the expression and consideration of
that concern. Moreover, no provision is made for the
input of either local or State government into the
placement of such homes.
The General Assembly has recognized that problem,
and, in addition to House Bill 1955, has enacted Senate
Bill 1087. Senate Bill 1087 also provides for the
establishment of these group homes, but proceeds upon the
premise, as stated in the bill, that, "in order to assure
that these group homes will be accepted in the community
... to the maximum extend practicable, these group homes
should be located by local government, consistent with
the principles of normalization, statewide standards, and
with State financial and technical support."
The Senate Bill is patterned largely after the
approach taken by the General Assembly last year with
respect to community adult rehabilitation centers. It
requires first that the Director of Mental Retardation
determine the need for group homes throughout the State,
after consulting with the local governments, consumer
groups, education agencies, and other public and private
agencies. Once a need is determined, the local governing
bodies, in consultation with local consumer groups, must
"pursue promptly appropriate procedures to select a
suitable site or sites" for the needed homes. The
Director is required to assist in this endeavor. Before
selecting a site, the local governing body must hold at
least one public hearing in the county in which a
proposed site is situate. If, within nine months after a
certification of need, the local government has failed to
select suitable sites, the State is empowered to choose a
site and construct or renovate a facility.
Obviously, the two bills are, programatically,
inconsistent with each other. Indeed, the Attorney
General has advised me that "the two bills are basically
irreconcilable and only one should be signed into law."
The carefully constructed plan for determining the need
for these homes and allowing public input into their
placement, provided for in Senate Bill 1087, would be
meaningless and of no avail if House Bill 1955 were to
become law. I believe that, to have a reasonable chance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
