Written by 
Another battle in California is starting to break out with ignorance at its foundation.
After writing the article which precedes this one about how confused the general public is about sober livings, I have become more sympathetic to their fears. The problem is the city councils, who because they are elected by the people feel they have to put up a fight for them, is where all these advanced cases start out — instead of being put to rest..
Indeed, the city councils should be truly educated about the generally harmless nature of well run sober livings, and how important they are for people in the community. They could act to calm the community down and teach them what a sober living really is, and how little in terms of serious problems ever accompany most sober livings. Read this article, which reads to me as though yet another reporter is muckraking on the side of residents to get a headline (though I have admittedly seen much worse):
YUBA CITY, CA – There is a battle between neighbors in Yuba City.
Some residents on Lonely Oak Street say they do not want a sober living home opening in their neighborhood. They say addicts lead to crime and they want to protect their children.
“I have three kids and I don’t want to worry when I come home. Addicts are unpredictable,” said Sam, who did not want to give his last name.
“I see some sober-living people down the street buying beer. I don’t want them here,” said another resident who did not want to use her name.
But Roger Anderson from Buddy’s House Sober Living says recovering addicts have rights too.
“They have random drug testing and curfews and we are going to be the best neighbors,” Anderson said
The sober living house is for addicts of drugs and alcohol, and not for registered sex offenders.
Residents of sober-living homes are not required to notify neighbors unless more than six people live in the home.
Residents on Lonely Oak Street say they feel their hands are tied. They want to circulate a petition to try to force the sober living residents to move.
Melinda Meza, mmeza@news10.net
Well, whichever member of the local newspaper wrote this, certainly is on the side of the sober living folks. We are however, very thankful to have News10 and it’s reporters who are willing to represent the concerns of good Samaritans, with legitimate fears of having the unpredictable behavior of addicts next door to our children. This particular sober living home that was pushed back in Yuba City, had more than 6 people occupying it, and the residents who own homes around it, were not notified, they had to see it with their own eyes. This was primarily where the problems started, and do not blame it on the city council, because it should be the responsibility of these addicts to gain permission from the neighbors ahead of time, if they wish to carry out their treatment plan next door. If addicts would like to work their way into become good, trusted members of the community, they certainly aren’t getting anywhere with the approach of “Surprise, we are moving in, like us or not, and without fair warning!”. Truly, these sober living homes to do not take full accountability for the fact that despite random drug tests, neighbors have witnessed bags of booze being carried from the local mini mart back to these homes. I they really want to be accepted by mothers with young children living right next door, they need to gain permission in advance, and operate in a transparent way, sharing a copy of the Sober Living rules. And, if those rules were to include daily drug testing of occupants, instead of random drug testing, I can guarantee the reaction of many neighbors would have been more favorable.
It needs to be told the house right next door to this Sober Living house has a large marijuana grow of more than a dozen 8′ plants. Where is the outrage of fear from these parents of children from the drug dealers in their neighborhood. There is much more danger associated with an active pot farm in your neighborhood than a recovering alcoholic.