If a drug rehab facility is proposed next-door to your home, do you have a right to know about it?

Highland residents say they have been duped by the city, after elected officials approved a residential drug rehabilitation center without once announcing on posted agendas what the facility was, or where it would be located.

City officials told the Daily Herald that they did not dare do more to disclose the information, lest they be sued. Other cities have spent tens of millions to defend themselves after announcing a proposed drug rehab center, Mayor Jay Franson said.

Elected officials have repeatedly tried to mollify Highland residents by explaining that their hands were tied by federal law, but few said they were satisfied by that logic. Residents have said the city had an obligation to fight the facility, pointing out that elected officials voted to allow the rehab to have eight residents, rather then the four allowed by city law.

On Sept. 1, the city gave this notice as part of its regular council agenda, which was posted at several locations, and e-mailed to residents by request: "Makin Homes request for a reasonable accommodation to house up to eight disabled persons according to restrictions and regulations governed by state law."

Deep into a large packet of information provided to elected officials, and available to the public only online, and only if you knew where to find it, the address of the rehab was given, but never once in 16 pages of documents about the facility is drug addiction mentioned. In fact, the only reference to drugs at all could easily, without a legal degree, be interpreted to state the opposite -- the portion of the law dealing with "substance abuse facilities ... does not apply," according to a staff report in the documents. Upon review, the complex language appears to actually say it does not apply because there is no nearby school.

This opaque reference appears to be the only mention of drugs in any city documents that were available to the public before the vote. Otherwise, the facility is repeatedly referred to only as a "residence for persons with a disability."

Identical language was used on the Sept. 16 agenda, and that evening, the council voted to approve the facility.

That action has set off a firestorm of criticism. Over the past week, residents have verbally skewered elected officials in two meetings, saying there was no possible way for any resident to know what the council had actually voted on because of the language used on the September agendas.

Former mayor Jess Adamson was among the first to lambast council members at a meeting on Tuesday.

"On the agenda, it should have said drug addiction and the address, instead of just 'disability,' " Adamson said.

Other residents added their displeasure, saying repeatedly that no residents were at the September meetings to protest because no one knew what was happening. Over and over, residents said they depend on the agenda to know about controversial issues before elected officials vote. To make matters worse, residents said, minutes of the meeting were not available for several weeks, frustrating attempts to get facts about what had actually happened at the meeting.

We were not given an opportunity to participate in the process, several residents said.

In an interview, Franson told the Herald that according to David Church, Highland's attorney, people being treated for drug addiction are protected by federal law. The city believes this required them to call the residential rehab an "accommodation to house up to 8 disabled persons," and did not allow the city to overtly state that the disability in question was drug addiction.

Whatever the legalities, the practical difference between someone with a congenital physical or mental disability, for example, and someone fighting substance addiction boils down to "the potential of destroying neighborhoods," as one angry resident put it, or this, as voiced by another: "They relapse and relapse and relapse, and when they do, they steal everyone blind."

The city is helpless to act, Franson said.

"We've been told our hands are tied," he told the Daily Herald. "It puts us between a rock and a hard spot."

The city's logic appears to contradict documents provided to council members in advance of both the Sept. 1 and Sept. 16 meetings, which quote Utah Code 10-9b as follows: "Disability does not include current illegal use of, or addiction to, any federally controlled substance ... "

Franson told the Herald he was unaware of that language in Utah Code, as given to the council twice before the vote, and said that if true, perhaps it is trumped by federal law.

Angry residents said that if the law prohibits the city from telling residents when a drug rehab facility is proposed in their neighborhood, then the city has a responsibility to fight the law on behalf of residents. The fight has spilled over into the council campaigns.

"Voting on drug rehab centers in people's neighborhood without even notifying them is egregious and just really bad," said council candidate Tom Butler at a recent meeting. "These are not houses for the disabled. They are for the drug addicted. David Church is not fighting for Highland or the residents. ... Shouldn't we get a second or even third legal opinion before we roll over and play dead before we turn our residential neighborhoods into a halfway house?"

Residents must speak up, he said, "if you don't want to go from rural to rehab."

"I'm tired of being mandated to do things that I think are wrong for the city," said council candidate Scott Smith. "I'm tired of making decisions on the fear of being sued. Addiction is a choice. ... I wouldn't want this in my neighborhood."

Other candidates agreed that the city is helpless.

"While it is not something we want, it does not appear there are any areas for latitude," said council candidate Roger Dixon.

"Federal law classifies these people as disabled," said council candidate Brent Wallace. "Our state law protects them. If we did vote for this, we would be tied up in very expensive legal action, and Mr. Church advises we would almost certainly lose."

Franson's opponent in the mayoral race, Lynn Ritchie, said it is unfair to "surprise citizens" with these issues. "We need to invite them (to meetings) rather than have them find out through the grapevine."

For his part, Franson told residents that he does not agree with the process, but he has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers.

"I represent 16,000 people, which means I represent your pocketbooks, and there has been a lot of talk about being fiscally conservative. But if we break the law, where does that put us? We decided not to break that law. That does not mean we agree with it. To say that we are for it because we approved it, isn't right. To say we made a decision to not break the law is right."

Voting against the rehab would have been discriminatory because addicts "have a right to try to change their lives," Franson told an overflowing council chamber of residents. "I can see a number of you shaking your heads, but it is a decision that is there and it has been upheld in court."

Related

• Highland residents appeal residential rehab decision
• Highland residents argue rehab center decision