Editorial: Better engagement needed for treatment center proposal

The format of the Jockey Club meeting was poor. It was an open house setting, with information boards with people in front of them to answer questions. We have seen such formats before, and they can be successful if people are in the information gathering stage. If people are fueled by concern, not so much. A better format would be in a traditional town hall-style in which elected officials join the nonprofit team making the proposal, with representatives from the city available for clarifying questions as well. Ground rules would be presented about decorum and behavior. Only respectful dialogue would be allowed and sufficient time for all to speak should also be provided. All concerns should be aired out and addressed when possible, with a followup meeting to address concerns not addressed immediately. This is important.

This is the second editorial the Daily Journal has written on this proposal. The first one, printed March 4, expressed strong support for the Horizon proposal and its location. We believe many of the neighborhood concerns are without merit, and that the facility is needed in our community. The danger of addiction is not when people are getting treatment, it’s when they are not getting treatment. This will provide treatment, which makes our community safer and healthier.

We have also seen similar concerns expressed about a number of different uses over the years, but mainly as it relates to affordable housing. And inevitably, the neighborhood concerns brought up during the planning process do not come to fruition. Treatment centers, group homes and affordable housing are appropriate in any location in a city, especially in central areas with access to transportation. Residents who say they support treatment, just not near them, are not really supporting treatment.

Still, it is the responsibility of those proposing these new community uses to allay concerns in a professional, communicative and deliberate way. We have seen patient and informed advocates talk down a crowd. We haven’t seen that here, mainly because the format was wrong and proper ground rules were not set. Convince them.

In our March 4 editorial, we stated that communication was key. This recent meeting did not provide that opportunity, and we hope that those who support this proposal — from the nonprofit in charge of it, and the county officials advocating for it — recognize the absolute importance of additional community meetings with a different format than the one this week.

In our story this week about the meeting, there was a reference about the Delancey Street Foundation, and how it acquired property in the exclusive Pacific Heights neighborhood in San Francisco. The lesson there was that eventually the Delancey Street members altered negative perceptions as they volunteered and bettered the community together. We haven’t seen that here.

What we have here, still, is an opportunity to forge new ground in community collaboration, compassion and understanding through additional meetings and good faith efforts by all involved. That will take leadership, mutual respect and continuing communication. We haven’t seen that here, but it is absolutely necessary.