Submitted by Justin Teerlinck.
This is a response to articles published in Lakewood Connections Magazine over the past year concerning the placement of Adult Family Homes in Lakewood. Last summer, I contacted the editor of Lakewood Connections and requested that a counterpoint to the initial piece by Heidi Ann Watcher be published, but I was informed not only that the editor has declined to publish a counterpoint, but that it will not publish letters to the editor or public opinion—even from Lakewood citizens. I was also told that opinions published in Lakewood Connections represent the collective viewpoint of Lakewood City Council, and therefore, the entire City of Lakewood government. I do not know if Lakewood Connections is taxpayer funded, but city council surely is, and therefore citizens should have a voice whenever contentious issues come before the city—in print as well as in council chambers.
As a resident of Lakewood, I have a civic responsibility to speak–as do we all–when the rights of fellow citizens are jeopardized by unjust policies, and the proponents of unjust policies. To remain silent is synonymous with offering tacit acceptance, and the silence of ordinary people leaves us just as morally culpable as the perpetrators of injustice. Therefore, I refuse to stand by and say nothing.
I am concerned about the discriminatory practices that the City of Lakewood wishes to permanently ensconce in its policies to exclude people with mental illness from residing here. The City and its legal team argue that Adult Family Homes are intended only for people with developmental disabilities and senior citizens, and they use this spurious reasoning to waste taxpayer dollars to vociferously argue for discrimination against people with mental illness. In her article in last summer’s Lakewood Connections, attorney Heidi Ann Watcher conflates people with severe mental illness with violent offenders and people with predatory behaviors, and then contrasts her all-inclusive definition with “vulnerable” citizens. She conveniently ignores the fact that people with severe mental illness are also vulnerable citizens. Furthermore, the boundaries of these demographics are blurred, in that there are many people with dual or multiple diagnoses who need our help.
Ms. Watcher and the City of Lakewood should be ashamed–and the public should be outraged–by their NIMBY attitude which is inflammatory, discriminatory, and argues for exclusion of marginalized citizens from our community. It’s time we stopped seeing people only as the sum of their “condition,” and disrespecting older adults by discussing them in terms that suggest that age itself is a disease. Not only was the City’s attempt at discrimination wrongheaded, it also resulted in failure, in that their lawsuit was rightfully denied by Judge Elizabeth Martin, who admirably executed her duty to uphold our values.
The City of Lakewood may want you to believe that people with mental illness are violent predators who we need to be protected from by excluding them from residing here. These efforts amount to nothing more than grandstanding and public theater. It would be laughable if it were fiction, but sadly the only fiction underlying it is the delusion that people with mental illness or other marginalized groups can be legislated out of existence. In fascist, totalitarian states this has been tried, but America is a free society where it is recognized that we are stronger for the diversity of our origins, abilities, and experiences.
This is no laughing matter. Real peoples’ quality of life is at stake, and so are taxpayer resources. It is a myth that by denying people with mental illness continuing support, services, housing, and opportunities that we can save money and make people disappear from our consciousness. We can either pay for group homes, adequate preventive care, programs and support for people in need…or we can pay a much higher cost. We can pay to clog the drains of our broken system with those whom it has failed, we can continue to jail homeless people for vagrancy and petty crime, and for emergency room visits for indigent people—all while failing to address the root causes of societal problems. “These people” are not threatening your grandmother—they are someone’s grandmother, grandfather, their brother, sister, mother, or father, son or daughter. And because America has more freedom than some people who merely pay lip service to American values would like, “these people” will be your neighbors whether we like it or not—and if they are not adequately housed and supported, they’ll be on the streets. The cost of doing the right thing will inevitably be cheaper than paying to prop up the dying fantasy of a gentrified, homogeneous society.
The City of Lakewood has used its exclusive, closed-door pulpit of Lakewood Connections Magazine to urge citizens to speak up. On this point, I agree with them. We must speak out. We must tell our city leaders to not waste another dime of taxpayer funds on their profligate legal escapades. We have a duty to tell them to collaborate with—rather than fight—our state and county government partners to find financial and social solutions for our ill and indigent citizens. If every government agency passes the buck, no one’s problem remains everyone’s problem.
We must stop pretending that people with mental illness and other people with disabilities don’t have valuable contributions to make to our society. They do, if only we had the vision to recognize that, and provide them with opportunities to do so. Most importantly, we must stop adding to the stigma by spouting one-dimensional stereotypes as truth, we must stop advocating for discriminatory policies, and we must replace our so-called leaders who do—because their voice is the voice of the people. Our leaders are our paid representatives, the public trust is sacrosanct. While it is forgivable, and only human nature to err, elected officials must be held to a higher standard if the offices they hold mean anything. They must uphold the ideals of honor, veracity, and compassion for if they do not, they threaten to stain the honor of all Lakewood citizens.
A G Toth says
People with mental illness problems and violent criminals are, yes, not always the same. However, when the mental illness causes violent behavior which injures others, then there is a problem. My husband spent almost a year in an adult family home. He had Lewy Body Dementia and Parkinsons. He was never violent. He was attacked twice, however by other residents who wanted his milkshake, which resulted in a two day hospital stay for injuries. No one at the adult family home had any training on how to deal with violent behavior. Two 120 lbm 5 foot tall women were no match for a 175 lb, 6 foot tall 45 year old man with anger management issues. In both cases, the violent offender was made to move out, but it took several weeks to get rid of them. During all that time, I was very afraid for my husband’s well-being.
If you want to put violent individuals in a home situation, then require training for the caregivers and require someone capable of handling the violent person. Or, limit the placement of such individuals to homes where only these types of people can reside, with appropriate caregivers.
Yes, even the quietest disabled person can ‘flip out’, but the chances of that happening is very low compared to the chances of it happening when the individual is known for anger issues.
Let’s not compare apples and oranges, just because they both grow on trees. Adult family homes are designed to be quiet, simply managed shelters for vulnerable adults who cannot stay at home (I was required to work full time during my husband’s stay and had no family who could stay in the family home with him and care for him).
Violent individuals who have been confined under court ordered mandates are not ‘vulnerable adults’; they are violent individuals who require specialized care far beyond the capabilities of most adult family home caregivers.
Justin Teerlinck says
Hi Mrs. Toth,
Thanks so much for taking the time to read my article and respond with your personal story. I’m so sorry for what you and your husband went through. I agree with you 100% on all the points you make, and I appreciate your putting a human face on the complexity of this problem. No one wants violent people running loose, free to commit violence unimpeded. The problem we have is that our society–our governments–give the families and the paid caregivers of people with mental illness and other disabilities very little support. Front line staff in group homes are often poorly trained, receive very low pay, and very little education. They do the best they can to look after the people in their care, and they are highly dedicated, but most of the time that lack the tools they need to properly care for and protect folks like your husband. When society refuses to provide care to our most vulnerable, it creates many victims–patients, clients, residents, and often the caregivers themselves. I would never argue that violent people should have free reign, and I don’t know if Adult Family Homes are the best place for every kind of person in need, but city, state, and federal governments have a duty to find a place for hard to place individuals. People with untreated mental illness do not get better in jail, and people who have not committed crimes but are civilly committed inevitably return to the community. Our governments must work together to create community placements that are appropriate and safe for all. The reality is that at-risk and ex-offenders cannot be legislated away–the City of Lakewood’s expensive, failed lawsuit proves it. If these people are destined to return to the community, then the government must find a way to reintegrate them that increases their chance of success, and minimizes the risk to safety. What the correct solution is, is not easy or obvious, but it is obvious that the City of Lakewood and failed to even try–choosing instead to value their righteous crusade rather than seek pragmatic solutions that could better protect your husband and the people who care for him. Furthermore, even a cursory read of the articles in Lakewood Connections makes it clear that the City of Lakewood that sex offenders, violent predators, and people with severe mental illness are all the same, which is patently false. Statistics show that as a population, people with mental illness are less likely to commit violent crimes than the general population, and that they are more likely to be the victims of crime. The City has engaged in the worst kind of fear mongering, and used a disenfranchised population as a convenient scapegoat, wasting time and taxpayer dollars titling at windmills when they could be using their–our–limited resources working towards pragmatic solutions to ensure folks like your husband receive better care, and his caregivers are better supported. Thanks again for responding, and again, I am sorry for what you’ve had to endure.
Lisa Lombardo says
It’s not so much NIMBY – it’s not JUST in our backyard. These adult care homes were required to be placed in multiple counties but Lakewood has the bulk of them, and the bulk of those congregated in one large neighborhood. The city has made it clear that it is not opposed to these homes, it is opposed to them being mostly in our town. It is also opposed to – as am I – to placing persons with a history of violence into homes that do not have properly trained personnel and don’t have the facilities to assure those persons can be safely housed without risk to other residents or their neighbors.
Fred Block says
My position, and the position of many of my neighbors is that all individuals should reside in homes or facilities that can provide adequate and appropriate care. Our primary objection has been the placement of individuals with a violent history and a diagnosis of a violent future in residential settings that are not secured or properly staffed for their care. Since Lakewood has long been the final destination for many of Washington State’s mentally ill residents, I find your NIMBY argument to be inappropriate. I would suggest you direct your ire at other statewide locations.
Justin Teerlinck says
Mr. Block, I couldn’t agree with you more, but the devil is in the details. How do we determine what “adequate and appropriate care” is, and just as importantly, who is responsible and accountable for what? From what I can tell from the publicly available resources, the City of Lakewood is not contributing to finding solutions to these matters, but simply unfairly stirring up fear and anger toward one of its constituencies as a convenient way of abrogating its responsibilities by passing the buck, scapegoating a disenfranchised group that lack the power to defend itself, and simultaneously creating additional political capital for itself by playing the righteous savior of a city beset by the barbarian hoards threatening our mythical utopia. This is classic political maneuvering as old as Western civilization, practiced by everyone from Nero to Trump as a means of consolidating power without solving any problems.
As a mental health professional, I ask you sir, how do you propose to make “a diagnosis of a violent future” on an individual. Which assessment method and rating scale, which forensic evaluation, what unimpeachable empirical method are you suggesting will best hold up in court when we suggest abridging someone’s civil rights based on what someone thinks they “might” do in the future? Sorry for seeming glib, but this is the moral, ethical, and legal catch-22 that the system finds itself faced with. When society takes the rights of someone who has not committed a crime, the freedoms of all are at risk because of the potential (and actual) abuses of this power. The other problem is that non-professionals often feel that mental health professionals have magical powers to predict violent behavior, relapse, or deteriorate. When people do, the professionals make convenient scapegoats and are invariably accused of incompetence or moral lassitude, but the reality is that keeping people locked up is not a viable long-term solution, but we are rarely if ever given the tools and resources needed to safely manage at-risk people in the community.
Gary Turney says
Mr. Teerlinck has had his say, and I agree with many of his overall points, especially those about the rights of the mentally ill and their value to society. But the City of Lakewood is not acting in a discriminatory manner against the mentally ill. The City is simply acting on residents’ legitimate concerns about two aspects of AFHs in the city: 1) the excessive number of AFHs in the city, which Lisa Lombardo accurately refers to as “not JUST in our backyard”, and 2) the misuse of AFHs to place individuals with a history of violence. I also have lesser concerns about the condition of some of the homes, both in terms of the care residents are given, and the condition of the homes. Some of them look a bit dumpy, to be honest, and I have to wonder how and where the owners are cutting expenses.
Look, I live in Oakbrook, which is pretty much ground zero for this issue, so I certainly have a perspective here. I have been aware of AFHs in the area for 10-15 years, and have had no issues with them or their residents in the past. But these new problems need to be addressed, and I appreciate Lakewood leadership doing so.
A G Toth says
Hi Mr. Teerlinck Thanks for responding. Again, however, I will say AFH’s are no place for violent behavior individuals, OR put those individuals in a specific home JUST for that type of illness.
Combining a violent individual with someone who cannot walk easily or speak clearly, and who is obviously older and in less health physical shape is a recipe for disaster. Violent behavior individuals behavior patterns are to prey on more helpless individuals; the average 70 year old is not capable of defending him/herself against aggressive behavior.
Also, concentrations of a specific type of business (particularly one which has very loose regulation and oversight) like AFH’s impact neighborhood values and add to other problems. AFH’s, by definition, have little strict security and, in most cases, the care givers are young to middle-aged women who tend to be smaller and less physically fit than the violent behavior individuals. Asking two, or three, women like this to care for one or two youngish, strong, violent individuals is a quick road to serious problems.
Please note, I am NOT including those individuals with mental illness problems with those people with violent behavior problems. I am, however, recommending separation of people needing continuing care and not mixing physical illness and old age individuals with those who can, and will, threaten or harm, them.
I will also ask why you are so passionate about this subject. You have articulated a position which is problematic at best without 1) defining why you think this problem can be solved with your viewpoint, and 2) what, specifically, is why you are speaking out so strongly. What solutions do you see for Lakewood? Western State? Washington State?
No one wants ill people dumped anywhere. Yes, proper placement and care is necessary. The people, and town Council, of Lakewood tend to believe they are being forced to handle a state generated problem which has several other, alternative, solutions, including requiring counties of origin to provide care and security for people who were resident in that county prior to their illness/problems.
Does anyone know how Eastern State Mental Hospital (yes, there is such a place) handle this problem?
Justin Teerlinck says
Mrs. Toth,
Again thank you for your thoughtful reply. Respectfully, I submit that I think you and the other folks replying may be misreading my comments and missing the point. My focus is not where or how to house at-risk people in the community, although I acknowledge that this is a very important issue that I’ve thought about, especially in light of your personal story, and my own professional experiences. The point I’m making is that the issue of “violent offenders” is a smokescreen that the City of Lakewood is hiding behind in order to close the door on all people with mental illness in our community. If you read Heidi Ann Watcher’s comments in Lakewood Connections, you’ll see that she makes no distinction between “violent offenders” and other people with severe mental illness. And she uses the most outrageous examples to make her point. It’s a red herring argument and classic pseudo-reasoning. It is also fear mongering of the worst variety. With all due respect, it’s not my job to create a solution, but that of our elected and appointed city leaders–especially since they are creating more problems for all of us with their isolationist, NIMBY attitude. I’d be happy to put my decades of experience and graduate level training in the mental health and medical fields to good use in working on this, but I won’t do so while I have no voice or influence in the process, and I won’t participate in efforts at discrimination against people with mental illness and other disabilities. All efforts at discrimination and fear mongering must end before we can begin to have a constructive dialogue about solutions to the placement of at-risk individuals. Our city, county and state government leaders must be able to sit down at the same table and shelve the politics of personal aggrandizement and demonstrate the maturity to work constructively and efficiently. I have been a part of many futile discussions at the management level; I’m not interested in wasting more energy on superficial, half-hearted attempts to problem-solve that are mere window dressing to bolster individuals’ careers. When the city or any other entity decides to get serious about getting down to business in solving these issues, they will find no greater ally or more diligent worker than I. But whoever I work with, my primary concern is advocating for the empowerment of those who have no voice, not in solidifying the elite status of those who do. I hope this clarifies my position. Again, thank you for your perspective, and indeed to all the other people replying as well.
A G Toth says
Hello again Mr. Teerlinck……an interesting statement from you “With all due respect, it’s not my job to create a solution, but that of our elected and appointed city leaders–especially since they are creating more problems for all of us with their isolationist, NIMBY attitude.”
Excuse me, but as a citizen, member of the community, and practicing professional in the field, whose job is it? A council member with no training in mental illness? A council member who represents Tillicum? If I don’t care enough to research the problem and look for solutions, then I am a part of the problem. And THAT is the problem…we all know what is WRONG; how many of us know what is RIGHT!
Those citizens who have extra expertise have a corresponding responsibility to place that expertise at the availability of the community. Just as an attorney is a mandated reporter for violence in any situation, so any professional has a duty to help find solutions. It is not enough to point out a problem…and Lakewood becoming a ‘dumping ground’ for certain types of individuals is definitely a problem.
If you know something which will help both the community at the individuals involved, then you MUST speak up and present what you know! Otherwise you are a ‘head-in-the-sand’. NIMBY/Not My Job person. It’s just like if you don’t vote, you can’t complain about the leadership; if you don’t speak up and help the community focus on the SOLUTION, then you can’t complain about the problem!
Thank you
Justin Teerlinck says
Allow me to clarify, Mrs. Toth: I do not owe you anything, and you know nothing of the time and labor I have put in public service, and therefore you have no right to lecture me about it.
If horsewhipping the messenger makes you feel better, by all means, continue your pointless tirade. I actually appreciate your personal attack because it proves my point exactly: people like you would rather spit in the face of anyone fighting for a compassionate outlook. I have offered my learned perspective, and been met with your ignorant, spiteful assumptions, as well as cowardly chracter attacks leveled from an armchair internet troll…as I stated, why would I participate in a process that is not constructive and filled with so much vitriol and disrespect toward someone who cares? Again, thank you for showing me in bold print why it would be counterproductive for me to give away the experience and expertise I have been giving for over twenty years. People like you are the reason why it’s impossible.
I am not your slave, Mrs. Toth, and I do not do your bidding. The hypocrisy in your perspective is jaw-dropping. You claim to be a victim, but show it by attempting to bully others. You lecture me about my civic duty, and then admit you are not even a Lakewood resident.
You are looking for another whipping post for your rants, but you’re going to have to keep looking, because I refuse. I wrote my article out of a sense of duty and care for less fortunate, marginalized people, but you seem to be bent only on personal attack and defending city leaders decisions in a city you do not reside in.
Your words are pointless, your sentiments are self-indulgent, and frankly, you should be embarrassed of yourself.
Harold A Maio says
—-Discrimination Against Mentally ill Community
We are far too broad a demographic to be a “community”.
Cindy Peak says
Of course the mentally ill should be treated with dignity and respect, and not be discriminated against by any community. But our government has created a problem by not differentiating between those who can be safely housed in communities and those who are violent offenders and cannot. Because of this lack of differentiation, violent people and sexual predators are finding their way into adult family homes, and people rightfully objecting to that may appear to be applying NIMBY across the board; but they are not.
In the meetings I have attended and the discussions in which I have been involved, I have not found this sentiment at all. What I have found is this:
1) a disproportionate number of adult family homes are in Lakewood as compared to other areas of the state, and within Lakewood, Oakbrook has at last count I heard over 45 of them — this is not fair to the citizens of Lakewood/Oakbrook
2) Adult Family Homes are not equipped to handle violent patients; this failure is well documented
3) Violent criminal offenders and sexual predators do not belong in our neighborhoods; yes they have rights, but the rights of innocent children and people of the community should trump those of the criminally violent; the State needs to get its act together and deal with this problem
4) the State is missing in action with regard to these issues; they’ve already mismanaged away $53 million of Federal Funding for Western State (so we taxpayers get to make up the difference)
It is not likely that other parts of the state are going to proactively seek to move more Adult Family Homes into their communities. Therefore in order to compel a remedy for Oakbrook and Lakewood, some leaders in Lakewood and Pierce County have been raising the issues. And they should.
Bob Warfield says
Dear All:
This is not a problem without a solution, but it is one that divides opinion based upon impact, association and experience. Lest we reduce to “wisemen” attempting certainty, tail in hand, it may help to begin with clarity that distinguishes the geography between behaviors, agency and budgets in ways that apprehend shared zones of responsibility rather than finite in-box anxieties eager to clear jurisdictional concern. In that respect, it will help to recognize that in some sense, “the problem” is inherent of community, and the solution, though seeking perfection, will likely never fully attain. Still, we can do better with inter-agency cooperation joined to recognize foremost that help (appropriate placement) for an afflicted individual is central to help for all.
bob w
A G Toth says
Let’s start our own community involvement committee to define this problem and then research alternatives for the Council!
1) What makes Oakbrook so attractive to AFH operations?
2) What do we mean by ‘violent’, ‘criminal’, or ‘dangerous’ behavior?
3) Who is funding the movement of the people with “dangerous tendencies” to AFH’s?
4) Why is Lakewood getting such a high proportion of these individuals with difficulties?
5) What is an acceptable AFH home for such individuals?
6) What is the difference between ‘mental illness’ and ‘dangerous individuals’? Should they be kept separate from each other as well as separate from the general AFH population?
7) Which occupational professionals can help with researching/resolving this problem?
PS: I don’t even live in Lakewood but have a Lakewood mailing address so is this NOT MY PROBLEM ? or, as a responsible adult, do I have a requirement to come forward if I think I can help?
Gary Turney says
A.G. Toth. Good questions. A few have obvious answers, at least to me. Lakewood, and especially Oakbrook, are attractive to AFH operations because they are so close to Western State Hospital. I would guess that many of these residents need outpatient care, which is like conveniently obtained at the hospital. Less obvious is that many AFH’s are owned by the same person. So if an AFH owner wishes to expand his business, it’s a lot easier and more convenient to buy a house in the same neighborhood. I admit all of this is speculation on my part, but it seems reasonable.
As far as funding, I believe DSHS, coordinated with WSH (which, of course is run by DSHS), is responsible for the funding and placement of all AFH residents.
With regards to the placement of dangerous individuals, the issue is in some instances DSHS has not followed the guidelines they have on their own web page. Violent individuals and sex offenders are specifically prohibited from placement in AFH’s serving non-violent mentally ill, handicapped, and elderly. So I don’t think much “research” is needed on that front, other than why DSHS is not following the guidelines. (And I can guess the answer to that too. Pressure on WSH to get as many patients out into the community as possible, freeing up hospital bed space, which is limited because of funding. Again, speculation on my part but I’ll bet I’m close.)
A G Toth says
Hello Mr Teerlinck…..For someone who was ‘whipping the messenger’ in the Lakewood Connections column, you have certainly reacted in a very interesting manner over questions which were designed to move the discussion forward, not re-hash the same points. Get a grip. You jumped into this question with both feet with inflammatory name-calling against the original author without giving anyone any information about your background or reasons. You wrote passionately about this subject and I quote:
“The City of Lakewood may want you to believe that people with mental illness are violent predators who we need to be protected from by excluding them from residing here. These efforts amount to nothing more than grandstanding and public theater. It would be laughable if it were fiction, but sadly the only fiction underlying it is the delusion that people with mental illness or other marginalized groups can be legislated out of existence. In fascist, totalitarian states this has been tried, but America is a free society where it is recognized that we are stronger for the diversity of our origins, abilities, and experiences.”
If that is not ‘horse-whipping the messenger’, I’m not sure what is. I did not attack you; I challenged you to help us all find a way. You stated “it’s not my job”; I want to know whose job you think it is and how to get those people involved in the solution. It is not enough to state a problem; solutions require work. Restating the problem doesn’t give us a solution.
Justin Teerlinck says
You seem very fond of reciting quotes, but perhaps you should try reading them, Mrs. Toth. Since I wrote the initial article, it’s fair to say I stated the problem, not restated it. Your childish, all-caps diatribe had failed to do anything but attack me while ignoring the point of what I’ve been saying. Essentially, you are wasting space with righteous exortations while I’m advocating for people. You have wasted my time and that of other readers promoting your hypocritical, ignorant views when you could have provided your own “solutions” (since I have failed to do that, per your lofty standards). You question my motives, but yours are on full display. You make me wish I had never bothered to disagree with you resoectfully or ever given you the benefit of the doubt, or my compassion. You yourself appear to have nothing to contribute, so instead of continuing to attack me, why not go out and do some actual thinking (and learning) and write your own article, before you honor me further with your one-sided rant. I doubt you have the courage or the ability to contribute something either intelligent or original, if your present remarks are any indication. You are not even pretending to have any knowledge or stake in this, and you are not even a member of this community. You seem to be here because I’m an easy target, and you really enjoy the sight of your self-righteous thoughts online. You dare to lecture me about “contributing,” but you have nothing but hate to contribute. The world could do with far less of that, and so could I. I am very honored that you have spent so much time and energy making me your focus, but I think it’s time to move on. Please, grow up, and unless you can manage that, keep your one-note, uninformed comments to yourself.