Q. What is Oxford House Inc.?
Oxford House Inc., is a non-profit, tax exempt, publicly supported
corporation which acts as a umbrella organization for the national
network of Oxford Houses. It provides quality control by organizing
regional Houses into Chapters and by relying heavily upon the
national network of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous
groups. While Oxford House is not affiliated with AA or NA, its
members realize that recovery from alcoholism and drug addiction can
only be assured by the changing of their lifestyle through full
participation in AA and NA. In most communities, the members of
those organizations help Oxford Houses get started and report any
charger compliance problems with respect to a particular house. As
soon as Oxford House Inc., hears of such problems, it takes
corrective action because the good name of Oxford House is an
important factor in the recovery of thousands of individuals.
Supporting Responsible Living
An underlying
principle of Oxford House is that each individual member has the
ability to be responsible for himself. Living within an Oxford House
provides both the opportunity and motivation for all residents to
regularly attend AA and/or NA meetings. The example of Oxford House
members going to AA or NA meetings on their own is contagious. It
has been the experience of Oxford House that participation in AA and
NA is extremely high in an environment where one individual can see
another individual, with the same disease, reaping great benefits
from AA and/or NA participation.
Oxford House is Not AA or NA-rather Oxford House was founded to
support those who are members of 12step groups. Much like a church
that allows an AA group to meet in their basement is not AA, yet AA
is part of that community. There is an indirect relationship, AA
does not endorse nor oppose outside issues, housing is an “outside
issue”.
Zoning Issues and Cases:
Second Circuit Upholds Application of ADA to
Zoning Decisions. An outpatient drug- and
alcohol-rehabilitation treatment center sought a building permit to
relocate to a larger, more convenient site. The zoning board denied
the permit and the center sued. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's order enjoining the city from
interfering with the center's occupation of the new site. Giving
broad meaning to the phrase "services, programs, or activities of a
public entity," the court held that both the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act apply to zoning decisions made by a governmental
entity. Specifically, the court held that the center had been denied
the benefit of having the city make a zoning decision without regard
to disability. The court also held that even where participants in
rehabilitation are not entirely drug-free, the "inevitable small
percentage of failures should not defeat the rights of the majority
of participants" who are drug-free and therefore disabled under both
statutes. Finally, the court found evidence of discriminatory motive
in that the board had acted on no other ground but to alleviate the
political pressure arising from community prejudice. The Second
Circuit's application of Title II of the ADA to zoning suggests that
advocates may secure favorable results by alleging Title II
violations along with violations of the FHA. Innovative
Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, No.
96-7797 (2nd Cir. June 27, 1997), 1997 WL 349853 (2nd Cir. (NY)).
Louisiana Legislators, City Councilpersons, be aware:
County Commission Not Shielded by Legislative Immunity
for Denying Land-Use Permit. In one of the first favorable
decisions of its kind, a federal district court in Georgia has held
that members of a county commission can be sued for discriminatory
land-use decisions. Many courts have held that public officials are
immune from FHA liability when they make broad land-use policy
decisions, see Horizon House Development Services v. Township of
Upper Southampton, 804 F. Supp. 683 (E.D. Pa. 1992), aff'd
without opinion, 995 F.2d 217 (3d Cir. 1993); People
Helpers Foundation v. City of Richmond, 789 F. Supp. 725 (E.D.
Va. 1992). The Georgia court distinguished between this legislative
function and situations in which public officials make decisions
that affect only a single parcel of property. In the latter
instance, the court held that 1) the members of the county
commission who voted to deny the permit were not entitled to
absolute legislative immunity because a land-use decision by local
legislators which applies only to a specific party is not protected
by legislative immunity, 2) defendants were entitled to summary
judgment on the FHA disparate impact claim since the permit denial
was an isolated decision, not a neutral action with a discriminatory
impact, and 3) plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the
claim that the denial violated the reasonable accommodation
provision of the FHA.
See
Oxford House Website:
www.OxfordHouse.org
Action to Oppose Legislation in Louisiana
Louisiana Main
