Mills River residents showed up in force to a town council meeting to reject a proposal for a residential substance abuse treatment program proposed for a house in their neighborhood. Neighbors were concerned about property values. The dude next-door said his real estate agent said he could expect to sell his house for 35 percent less now that the discussion is on the table. The attorney for the project, however, said, “This program is not about addiction. This program is about recovery from addiction.” Everybody in the program will have been detoxed, they are actively seeking help (for what we cannot fathom), and they are not allowed to use drugs or alcohol on premises. They would not be allowed off premises without an escort, but they would be “integrated into ordinary social and business society.” On top of all the “anxiety,” “anger,” and “emotion” from neighbors, one affected party presumably has been diagnosed with debilitating anxiety and depression caused by worrying about the facility. After three hours of public comment, council continued the meeting to the following week.
In analysis, this issue balances two libertarian absolutes. On the one hand, he who purchases the property has the right to do as he pleases – unless and until his rights interfere with others. Secondly, it is the role of government to make sure people are not getting their rights infringed. My first impression upon reading this was to flash back to a certain stalker arrested for trespassing and illegally carrying a gun, but not cured of his trespassing inclinations. He dwells in rehab/not-rehab houses. My second thought is memories of recent personal experiences with the healthcare system in which irrelevant protocols and legal defense way outweighed trying to figure out what the medical problems were.
