Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 -- January 25, 2004 Z.B. <br /> <br /> Discrimination ~ County denies permit to methadone clinic <br /> Claims patients would pose_significant risk to community <br /> <br /> MARYLAND (12/17/03) -- START-Inc. wanted to open a methadone clinic <br /> for opiate addicts in Baltimore County. " <br /> Since 199'3, Baltimore County permitted such clinics only after a "consul- <br /> tadotdapproval procedure" applied to no other type of facility. <br /> While START went through the lengthy permitting process, a storm of <br />opposJ, tion erupted in the local community. Based on this opposition, Balti- <br />more County denied .ST~'ART the necessary permits. <br /> START sued, claiming its patients were disabled under the Americans with <br />Disabilities Act and the county could not discriminate against them. <br /> Baltimore County responded even if the patients were disabled under the <br />Americans with Disabilities Act, ir could still deny the perm/ts because the <br />patients presented a significant risk. <br />DECISION': Judgment in favor of START. <br /> Assuming START's patients were legally disabled under the Americans <br />with Disabilities Act, Baltimore County's assertions did not remotely approach <br />the necessary showing of risk that would allow the county to sell deny START <br />a permit. <br /> Generalities about the criminal behavior of heroin addicts were not enough. <br />Baltimore County simply relied on general statements about heroin depen- <br />dence and cd_me in an 18-year-old book by a leading cr/minology scholar. <br /> Whether there was a significant risk caused by the clinic was a hct-inten- <br />sive determination involving consideration of the nature, duration, and sever- <br />ity of the risk, and the probability potential injury would occur. Such a deter- <br />ruination had to be based on current medical knowledge or on the best avail- <br />able objective evidence. <br /> The most reasonable assumption was that methadone treatment, the therapy <br />ST?~RT hoped to offer, could control the rSsks of crime just as it controlled the <br />underlying addiction that supposedly produced them. <br />Citation: START b~c. v. Baltimore Count, U.S. District Courr ~br the District <br />of Maryland, No. CCB-03-2051 (2003). <br />see also: Smirh-Berch Inc. v. Bahimore County,, 115 F.S,~pp.rd 520 (2000). <br />see also: Regional Economic Community Acdon Program Inc. v. City of <br />Middletown, 294 F. 3d 35 (2002). <br /> <br />Ordinance -- County requires builders of single-family homes to <br />include wheelchair access <br />Builder claims county has no. rational basis to do so <br /> <br />,'x~dZONA (12/19/03) -- The Pima County Board of Superwsors adopted an <br />ordinance that included new building requirements applicable to the construc- <br />tion of new. single-family homes in unincorporated parts of the county. <br /> <br />108 <br /> <br /> <br />