Last night I watched as close to 100 Camden residents showed up to avoid another unwanted facility dumped in their neighborhood. I watched the Zoning Board publicly support residents, then vote against them. It was heartbreaking.

Jim Walsh captured the proceedings with his lede: 

The zoning board has narrowly advanced a controversial plan to move a methadone clinic from the downtown area to a city neighborhood.

A steady stream of audience members blasted the proposal at Monday night’s meeting, drawing loud applause with arguments against putting the clinic at a planned site near 6th Street and Atlantic Avenue.

But the board’s attorney, Kyle F. Eingorn, advised members that a refusal to allow the clinic’s move would represent illegal discrimination against people being treated for addiction. That supported an argument made by attorney Edward Sheehan for the clinic’s owner, Camden Recovery Holdings.

Board members voted 3-1-1 to find the methadone clinic was a permitted use at the site.

Adam Woods, the owner of Camden Printwork (and an adorable 1 year old that he brought to her first Camden City proceedings) said it best: 

On The West Wing, President Bartlet says at a town hall in Roslyn “decisions are made by those who show up.” Similarly, in his farewell address, Barack Obama said if you don’t like what you see in the country around you, “run for office.” These are nice ideas, but as a person who shows up, and as a person who has volunteered for grassroots political candidates, I have come to believe they are naive platitudes (at least in cities).

Tonight, everyone showed up in opposition to a methadone clinic at 6th and Atlantic, found the Zoning Board to be in vocal agreement, and?—?yet?—?amazingly?—?voted 3–2 to approve the clinic.

When civil unrest rears its handsome head, status-quo-ers often wonder “why didn’t these people avail themselves of the democratic process?” We did, and it didn’t work, so now we must gather our pitchforks.

There are a million nuances worth discussing here, but I want to touch on just a few: 

• the limiting of testimony to a narrow “interpretation” of whether Light Industrial Zoning allowed a methadone clinic was a classic way to undermine community input. Kyle Eingorn repeatedly said that public notice had been provided of the meeting, but by most residents believed they were going to testify about a variance (which takes into account positives and negatives of the zoning change). Frankly, the community didn’t have the resources to bring a lawyer to the first meeting, and even if they had, without knowing the legal issue at stake, that lawyer would have been at a huge disadvantage. If you want to know why clinics end up in Camden, this type of “you had your chance” to oppose nonsense is high on the list. 
• It was hard to tell, given the lack of a lawyer without a stake in the clinic moving forward, but the advice given by Kyle Eingorn seemed to leave itself open to potential challenge in Superior Court. He advised that the “interpretation” should allow a clinic because Light Industrial allowed “business offices” yet the Camden Zoning Ordinance lists the methadone clinic as a “business service” and lists business services as allowed in Commercial zoning, but it is not listed in Industrial Zoning. The bet here seemed to be that residents would not have the resources to challenge the ruling in court. 
• I was worried that this would turn into a conflict between neighborhoods — those who wanted the clinic to leave their community (Cooper Grant) and those who did not want it to be a part of theirs (Bergen Square). That didn’t happen, and most of the Cooper Grant residents I recognized chose not to testify, or to limit their testimony to the damage the clinic does. It was a nice moment of solidarity. 
• There is a much wider discussion that still needs to be had about this particular clinic’s practices. In speaking to a social worker prior to the meeting, I learned the clinic is what’s colloquially referred to as a “juice bar” — which means that it does not have strict policies about patients using drugs while on methadone. There’s a chance the clinic is a “bad actor” but it’s important to note that these strict policies often keep those struggling with addiction from getting needed treatment. There’s a case to be made for the more lenient policies. But it does mean that this clinic works with some of the most challenging population in the area — if it’s going to be in a neighborhood with elementary schools and an active drug trade, we need to have a serious conversation about what the best internal and city policies are needed to ensure this is not a problem. 
• A few of my students showed up to the meeting, and a few friends as well. For many, it was one of their first times being involved in a process like this. I feel for them — it’s an ugly side of the city to learn about — and am curious about their reaction. Does it make them want to fight? Demoralize them? 
  
  
• The clinic’s lawyer testified that the property was bought in 2006, and went before Zoning then, and they received a letter from the Camden Redevelopment Authority that the location would be ok for a methadone clinic. It’s a reminder of how calloused the current development projects in the city are — the plan, for over a decade, was to move this clinic to a struggling neighborhood as soon as it was profitable to develop its current location downtown. When I, or others, speak of the divide between the experiences of the “chosen” in Camden’s development and neighborhoods, this is what I’m talking about. 

Leaders from Bergen Square now have difficult choices in front of them. Do they work with the clinic to minimize damage? Do they take this ruling to court, knowing that they’ll face an uphill climb and expend valuable resources? And they’ll do all of this while knowing that their representatives in government have planned for over a decade to sell out their neighborhood the moment it was profitable to do so. 

 

 

Tags: methadone clinic