Orem to allow 'sober' homes

OREM — In a somewhat mandated ordinance change, the Orem City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to allow "sober living homes" for recovering drug and alcohol addicts in the city.

It's a matter of complying with the federal government's Fair Housing Act, but for many it's still a touchy subject.

"This is a sensitive situation," said James Robison, who lives in a neighborhood being considered by a sober living home provider. "It's been tough on our neighborhood. We're not trying to be unkind to these people, but your home is your sanctuary. When total strangers, you don't know who they are, when they're outside smoking ...," he trailed off. "Here everybody knows everybody for blocks on end. Unfortunately the Fair Housing Act doesn't look at that."

Under the FHA, which prevents housing discrimination based on age, race, ethnicity, gender and disabilities, recovering drug and alcohol addicts are considered disabled people.

"Typically with sober living (homes), they're (for) recovering drug and alcohol addicts who have already gone through a treatment and rehab program," said Orem City Attorney Steve Earl.

"They're not people subject to any type of incarceration or movement — they're just normal citizens who are just recovering from these addictions."

Earl explained that the city's current code allows for residential living homes for disabled people to be in neighborhoods, but he felt the City Council should approve some added wording for sober living homes.

"We're faced then as a community, as are all communities, with how do we comply with that part of the law and still provide the nature of a neighborhood with all residents to be able to enjoy their right to property ... (with) large commercial entities being dropped into a residential setting," said Orem Mayor Jerry Washburn. "Those are things that we're dealing with."

The Fair Housing Act requires that no restrictions be placed on sober living homes that are not universal to the entire neighborhood — avoiding discrimination against disabled persons.

Making any restrictions as to where the homes could be located, how many could be in a given neighborhood, or what types of residences they could live in would also be discriminatory. Earl mentioned numerous lawsuits where cities, trying to restrict such homes, have been sued and lost.