Future sober living location sparks debate in South Park community
The purchase of a house at 201 Waitman St. was finalized this week, and the property is expected to be used as a sober living facility operated by West Virginia Sober Living.
Word of the plan spread quickly via social media and distribution of flyers in the neighborhood. The house sits in the Chancery Hill Historic District bordering Hopecrest, South Park and First Ward.
The meeting at the Morgantown Municipal Building was originally planned as a one-on-one discussion with City Development Services Director Rickie Yeager, but morphed into a public gathering. Leading the charge was South Park community member Lynn Wojcik, who expressed concern about the new residence.
Yeager explained early in the meeting that the session was not a formal public hearing, but the community's concerns would be heard and accepted.
Shortly afterward, Morgantown police intervened as community members became argumentative and spoke over Yeager.
Justin Wojcik emphasized he was not against sober living homes, but took issue with the housing itself.
Sober-living facilities 'are absolutely needed,' he said. 'Countless friends have died from addiction, countless have recovered, and some are in the middle. There is just the right way of doing things.'
However, he is also worried about overcrowding. 'Three residents might be reasonable, but not eight to 12.'
While the number of residents is one concern, inadequate parking and the home's location in the neighborhood's historic district is another for him.
'Are they giving any thoughts to the historic parts of the house?' Wojcik asked.
Others defended the home's proposed use, including Frankie Tack, a retired service associate professor in mental health and addiction studies.
'We thought we would come and speak in support of the house,' Tack said. 'It's a residential bridge back into full-fledged independent living that can be very overwhelming for some people. This helps them regain stability and structure.'
Tack, a founding board member and former president of the West Virginia Alliance of Recovery Residences, explained that the house follows level 2 standards under the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, which include 24/7 supervision, peer support, regular drug testing and clear behavioral expectations.
'They'll be drug-tested every three-to-five days,' she said. 'They'll be supervised, and if someone relapses, they won't remain in the house and will be sent for treatment elsewhere. This is a house only for people actively working a recovery program.'
The sober living home will be operated by West Virginia Sober Living, which Tack described as 'one of the most respected sober living agencies in the state.'
As for legal fulfillment, Yeager read aloud from W.Va. Code 27-17-2, which clearly states that group residential homes are considered permitted uses in all zoning districts, and cannot be subjected to special use permits or additional zoning issues.
'Equal treatment,' Yeager said, citing the Fair Housing Act. 'These homes must be treated the same way as any other residential property.'
Tack also added noting that several such facilities exist quietly within South Park already.
'Drive by them yourself,' she said. 'They just look like regular homes; do you know why? Because that is the whole philosophy. Recovery happens best in small, home-like settings.'
As the meeting wrapped up, city staff distributed comment forms and encouraged residents to submit their input regarding the future sober living home.
'I think people easily forget about loving your neighbor,' Tack said. 'This is not a threat to the neighborhood, but a lifeline for the people in it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Dominion Post
27-06-2025
- Dominion Post
Future sober living location sparks debate in South Park community
MORGANTOWN — A community meeting intended to address concerns surrounding a recent house purchase in South Park turned into a heated exchange Thursday afternoon as neighbors, city officials and recovery advocates debated housing, zoning, stigma and safety. The purchase of a house at 201 Waitman St. was finalized this week, and the property is expected to be used as a sober living facility operated by West Virginia Sober Living. Word of the plan spread quickly via social media and distribution of flyers in the neighborhood. The house sits in the Chancery Hill Historic District bordering Hopecrest, South Park and First Ward. The meeting at the Morgantown Municipal Building was originally planned as a one-on-one discussion with City Development Services Director Rickie Yeager, but morphed into a public gathering. Leading the charge was South Park community member Lynn Wojcik, who expressed concern about the new residence. Yeager explained early in the meeting that the session was not a formal public hearing, but the community's concerns would be heard and accepted. Shortly afterward, Morgantown police intervened as community members became argumentative and spoke over Yeager. Justin Wojcik emphasized he was not against sober living homes, but took issue with the housing itself. Sober-living facilities 'are absolutely needed,' he said. 'Countless friends have died from addiction, countless have recovered, and some are in the middle. There is just the right way of doing things.' However, he is also worried about overcrowding. 'Three residents might be reasonable, but not eight to 12.' While the number of residents is one concern, inadequate parking and the home's location in the neighborhood's historic district is another for him. 'Are they giving any thoughts to the historic parts of the house?' Wojcik asked. Others defended the home's proposed use, including Frankie Tack, a retired service associate professor in mental health and addiction studies. 'We thought we would come and speak in support of the house,' Tack said. 'It's a residential bridge back into full-fledged independent living that can be very overwhelming for some people. This helps them regain stability and structure.' Tack, a founding board member and former president of the West Virginia Alliance of Recovery Residences, explained that the house follows level 2 standards under the National Alliance for Recovery Residences, which include 24/7 supervision, peer support, regular drug testing and clear behavioral expectations. 'They'll be drug-tested every three-to-five days,' she said. 'They'll be supervised, and if someone relapses, they won't remain in the house and will be sent for treatment elsewhere. This is a house only for people actively working a recovery program.' The sober living home will be operated by West Virginia Sober Living, which Tack described as 'one of the most respected sober living agencies in the state.' As for legal fulfillment, Yeager read aloud from Code 27-17-2, which clearly states that group residential homes are considered permitted uses in all zoning districts, and cannot be subjected to special use permits or additional zoning issues. 'Equal treatment,' Yeager said, citing the Fair Housing Act. 'These homes must be treated the same way as any other residential property.' Tack also added noting that several such facilities exist quietly within South Park already. 'Drive by them yourself,' she said. 'They just look like regular homes; do you know why? Because that is the whole philosophy. Recovery happens best in small, home-like settings.' As the meeting wrapped up, city staff distributed comment forms and encouraged residents to submit their input regarding the future sober living home. 'I think people easily forget about loving your neighbor,' Tack said. 'This is not a threat to the neighborhood, but a lifeline for the people in it.'
Miami Herald
19-06-2025
- Miami Herald
Insurance reform fizzles in Florida. ‘We didn't see as much happen as we'd like'
Florida's legislative leaders ushered in this year's session vowing to investigate insurance company profits and holding the industry accountable if it wasn't paying claims. A House committee held rare hearings to grill the state's current and former insurance regulators. Republicans and regulators proposed several pro-consumer bills. But 105 days later, it didn't amount to much. After one of the longest and most contentious sessions in memory, lawmakers left Tallahassee late Monday night without taking significant action to reduce premiums or increase scrutiny on the insurance industry. 'We didn't see as much happen as we'd like,' said Rep. Brad Yeager, the New Port Richey Republican who leads the House's insurance committee. Lawmakers are promising more action in the next session. Committees are scheduled to begin meeting again in October. They did devote $280 million to renew the popular My Safe Florida Home program, which awards $10,000 grants to help homeowners harden their homes. But lawmakers limited future eligibility to homeowners with low or moderate incomes. Legislative leaders began the session by talking tough about reining in the industry, receiving standing ovations in the House and Senate. Miami Republican House Speaker Daniel Perez ordered hearings into a never-before-seen study by Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation revealed by the Herald/Times weeks before the session. The study showed that at the start of the state's insurance crisis, insurers claimed to lose millions of dollars while their affiliate companies made billions. The study was never shared with lawmakers until the Herald/Times reported on it. Yeager's committee held two hearings during which regulators said the study 'raised red flags.' But they said the report wasn't shared with lawmakers because it was never completed. The author of the report, a government contractor, testified that the report was finished but that regulators never followed up with her on it. The hearings were the extent of the House's public investigation. Lawmakers also did not propose spending money to duplicate the study or pass legislation to enhance regulators' oversight. Yeager said the hearings 'validated our concerns' about companies shifting profits, but said there were outstanding questions about the data underlying the report. He said the House is considering hiring a forensic accountant this summer to analyze the full dataset, which was turned over to his committee. 'We're not done. This was not a one-session project,' he said. Insurance executives in Florida have earned incredible paydays over the years by shifting premiums to affiliate companies and away from the eyes of state regulators. Late in the session, the trade publication Insurance Journal revealed that the CEO of Tampa-based Slide Insurance and his wife earned $50.3 million in two years. Perez said the House's work looking into profit-shifting would continue. 'I think it's disgusting,' he said of the compensation. 'Internally, we're having discussions on what we can do to look into that,' he said. 'It is something that we will address. It is not something that we are putting on the back burner.' Legislators cited different reasons for why legislation stalled this year. House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell, a Tampa Democrat, said the session was distracted by Republican infighting, including over Hope Florida. The program created by Gov. Ron DeSantis to move people off government aid was investigated by House lawmakers during the session. 'I think that we lost momentum in terms of big policies and big ideas because so much had to be worked out between personalities,' Driskell said. Sen. Blaise Ingoglia, a Republican from Spring Hill who leads the Senate's insurance committee, said legislation mostly failed because 'some were trying to undo the reforms that have stabilized our insurance market.' Those reforms largely made it harder to sue insurance companies. Some Republicans, including Donald Trump, have been critical of those recent changes. House lawmakers this session introduced bills that would have allowed homeowners to recoup their legal fees when they sue insurance companies. DeSantis repeatedly railed against the idea, and the legislation failed. 'This would have led to increased costs and higher rates for everyone,' Ingoglia said.
13-06-2025
Nevada GOP governor vetoes voter ID bill that he pushed for in a deal with Democrats
LAS VEGAS -- Nevada Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo unexpectedly vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have required voters in the swing state to show a photo ID at the polls — a conservative priority across the country and something that has long been on the governor's legislative wish list. The move brings a dramatic end to one of the legislative session's most surprising outcomes: A bipartisan deal that combined the requirement for voter identification with a Democratic-backed measure to add more drop boxes for mail ballots that Lombardo had initially vetoed. The bill came together in the final days of the session and passed mere minutes before the Democratic-controlled Legislature adjourned just after midnight on June 3. Lombardo had been expected to sign it. In his veto message, Lombardo said he 'wholeheartedly' supports voter ID laws but that he felt the bill fell short on addressing his concerns about ballots cast by mail, because such ballots could still be accepted 'solely on the basis of a signature match" under the bill. Because it 'would apply voter ID requirements unequally between in-person and mail ballot voters and fails to sufficiently guarantee ballot security, I cannot support it,' he said. The voter ID requirements in the bill mirrored a ballot initiative known as Question 7 that Nevada voters overwhelmingly approved last November. But voters would have to pass it again in 2026 to amend the state constitution. The requirement would then be in place by 2028. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the Democrat who brokered the deal with Lombardo, said when he introduced the legislation that voters seemed poised to give the final approval, and that enacting a voter ID law would have given the state a head start on ensuring a smooth rollout before the next presidential election. In a scathing statement, Yeager called the governor's decision a 'breach of trust," saying that he believes Lombardo gave in to pressure around him to veto the bill, designated Assembly Bill 499. 'Lombardo was for AB499 before he was against it, encouraging all legislative Republicans to support it, which they did,' Yeager said. Voting rights groups condemned the legislation, saying it would have made it harder for some people to vote, including low-income or unhoused voters, people with disabilities and older voters. Let Nevadans Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan coalition, said Thursday in a statement that the governor's veto only temporarily stops what it called 'the misguided and ill-conceived implementation of voter ID in Nevada.' 'Come 2026, Question 7 will still be on the ballot," the group said while describing voter ID requirements as 'strict regimes' that 'decide who gets to exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.' Polls have shown that most Americans support voter ID laws, and that has been consistent over the years and across party lines. A 2024 Gallup poll found 84% of Americans were in favor of requirements for a photo ID at voting places, consistent with Gallup findings from 2022 and 2016. That includes about two-thirds of Democrats, according to the 2024 survey. Voters are either required or requested to show ID when voting in person in 36 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Not all states require photo ID, though. Some accept documents such as a bank statement, and some allow voters without ID to vote after signing an affidavit. A few states allow poll workers to vouch for voters without an ID. Lombardo on Thursday also vetoed a bill that would have allowed the swing state's nonpartisan voters to cast ballots in Republican or Democratic primary races. The bill sought to include the more than 855,000 voters registered as nonpartisans — the state's largest voting bloc — in the process of nominating major-party candidates for congressional races and statewide offices. A ballot initiative to open up primaries for all registered voters was rejected by voters last November. The sweeping measure, which also attempted to implement ranked choice voting, faced intense opposition from party leaders on both sides who said it was too broad and confusing.
