Home › News › County News
Neighbors' interest, state law conflict on group home
Download this story as a podcast!
Photo by Juan Carlo Mendoza
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
The house where Naomi Aparicio plans to rehabilitate troubled youths sits in a manicured neighborhood of Fillmore near day care centers, an elementary school and homes with young children.
"We can't turn our backs on kids," she said. "We've all made mistakes."
But neighbors say the middle-class tract called Hometown is no place for the community's first group home serving abused, neglected, abandoned and possibly delinquent teenagers.
Rose Martin, a mother of three who lives right behind Aparicio, would consider moving.
"I would be really worried," she said.
So would a state corrections officer, who fears she would one day be guarding juvenile offenders who came from the group home and will know where she lives. The officer, who asked not to be identified for fear of reprisal, said she would have to move.
The clash symbolizes the common resistance in communities whenever a group home for troubled youths is proposed. While residents want to protect their lifestyle and sense of community, the state wants to put children in homelike settings instead of the orphanages of the past.
Local communities, though, have little say over the location of these group homes because state law trumps their authority when a home has six or fewer beds.
May have no choice
Aparicio, 27, wants to operate a six-bed home for boys ages 13 to 17. It would be what's called a Level 12 home, a type that requires among the highest levels of care and commands among the highest state payments, $5,613 per child per month. Often the residents have mental health, behavioral and substance abuse problems, said county Supervising Deputy Probation Officer Theresa Hart.
Aparicio applied to accept sex offenders as a possibility, but now has no intention to do so, she said.
The home would take children who have been removed from their parents' custody because of abuse or neglect and possibly those on probation, she said.
Aparicio said she not only has met the state requirements to be a licensed administrator but also has the life experience to succeed. She faced her own hardscrabble childhood and says this home is her mission.
"I know I am not going to change everybody, but I can change the life of one person in the home," she said.
The license for the home, called the Transitional Life Center Foundation, is pending.
Social service officials say zoning regulations wouldn't stop the project, but the program must get the approval of state officials to open, and placement agencies must refer youths. Assuming that happens, neighbors may have no choice.
"They are powerless to keep her from opening if she can jump through all the hoops," said Steven Elson, chief executive officer of Casa Pacifica, which operates a group home for seriously troubled children on its Camarillo campus.
'A need for placements'
The battle has drawn the attention of both state and local officials fielding calls and e-mails from residents of Hometown, one of Fillmore's new developments. The homes have attracted both young families and retirees.
The controversy also comes at a time of declining demand for group homes, as county judges seek to keep children at home or in foster families. That dip, along with high overhead and lagging state payments, has forced many group home operators out of the field, Elson said.
"They eventually say we can't do it," he said.
Still, agencies like probation need beds in the county for several groups that are hard to place, officials say.
They include troubled adolescent girls, girls who are pregnant or have minor children, and youths who have committed sex crimes.
About half the Ventura County children ordered by courts into group homes must be placed elsewhere, some of them as far away as Fresno. They either have been terminated from group homes in Ventura County, group homes won't accept them, or they need a type of program not offered here, Hart said.
Photo by Juan Carlo Mendoza
"We have a ton of small children, babies all over the neighborhood. We just wish they hadn't bought the house."
Cindy Gardner, who lives on the street where Naomi Aparicio wants to open a group home serving abused, neglected, abandoned and possibly delinquent teenagers
"There's always a need for placements, always a need for more, because some of our local ones will reject them," Hart said. "We do have a significant number of (Level) 12 homes for males. We need more for girls."
'There hasn't been an issue'
Battles over group homes have raged in neighborhoods throughout the nation. Neighbors fear the unlocked facilities will drive up crime and drive down property values.
But research studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s showed no difference in either property values or public safety if group homes for the mentally disabled were not clustered on the same block.
In Simi Valley, site of nine licensed group homes for youths, police see no significant crime above any other neighborhood in the city. The biggest issue is runaways, Lt. Greg Riegert of the Simi Valley Police Department said.
They consume police time for taking reports, tracking down the youths and issuing arrest warrants if the child is on probation. It's a little more of a concern because they may have a criminal history, Riegert said.
Late last year, neighbors complained about a group home opening on Anastasia Avenue on the city's east side. Like Fillmore's Hometown, the middle-class area is populated with young children.
Neighbor Sean Ginnever said neighbors were afraid that sexual predators and violent criminals would soon be living among them. However, operators of the Guiding Our Youth group home for boys promised to screen and supervise residents carefully, he said.
"There hasn't been an issue whatsoever," he said. "You don't even see the kids much. They go from the front door to the car, from the car to the front door."
City Manager Mike Sedell said group home operators run much less risk of antagonizing neighbors if they are open about their plans. Managers of Guiding Our Youth made themselves available to anyone with questions, he said. "They had cell phones with them all the time," Sedell said.
Shatony Sargeant, owner-director of Guiding Our Youth, said supervision is key. "Good staff, good training and owners affiliated and knowing everything going on in the home, there won't be any problem," he said.
What can be done
In Fillmore, neighbors who say they were blind-sided by the proposal have appealed to state, county and city officials.
One issue is whether the use would be too intense for the residential neighborhood, said Kevin McSweeney, community development director in Fillmore. He is consulting with City Attorney Roger Myers to see what legal alternatives exist.
The neighbors also have complained to state Sen. George Runner and state Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, who represents the area.
Both legislators said they support local control over group homes and are researching what can be done.
"I believe it is so very important that community leaders and city councils have input and discretion in deciding where facilities go to best protect public safety," Strickland said.
Couple intend to move
It's not just the location in Fillmore's Hometown tract that's at issue. So are Aparicio's experience and that of her husband, Jared.
"They have not demonstrated the expertise to run a group facility that could endanger the neighborhood," said Hometown resident Jaime Callens.
The couple intend to move out with their three children — ages 4, 3 and 10 months — once the group home opens in the fall. Staff members are to supervise the residents 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Jared Aparicio, 28, bought the five-bedroom house on Catalano Court in December 2006 for approximately $650,000, based on county tax calculations. Hart said he has a long criminal record, but according to his wife he will not be involved in running the program.
His wife said he would be a great asset to the program if he weren't busy opening another business.
He has done a "complete turnaround" from his old life, she said, and is now involved with youth through the couple's church. If he were participating, he would have credibility with the teens in the home because of his background, she said.
'It's a bad idea'
Photo by Juan Carlo Mendoza
"I have no personal opinion whether they are fit or not to do it. My position is it's not a good thing to have in this neighborhood."
Jon Nelson, who lives near the house Naomi Aparico wants to use as a group home for troubled youths, wishes the facility would open "out in the middle of nowhere"
Aparicio said she is a former substitute teacher with a college degree from CSU Northridge. She has taken 40 hours of classes and passed a test to become a state-approved group home administrator, Aparicio said.
She has never run a home on her own, but she has consulted with a veteran administrator of group homes in Riverside County for at least two years and volunteered in group homes for five, she said.
"I have done everything an administrator has done but not gotten paid for it," she said.
The Riverside administrator, Yolanda Langdon, said she has written a comprehensive program for the home. The staff will be experienced, Langdon said, and the supervision constant.
"These kids are not outside terrorizing neighborhoods," she said.
Some say group homes don't really become a part of the neighborhood with youths on strict schedules of activities, employees coming in and out on shifts, and turnover among juveniles. The homes function like islands in the community, Elson said.
Still, Jon Nelson, who lives just down the street, wishes the facility would open "out in the middle of nowhere."
"I think it's a bad idea," Nelson said as his wife, Larissa, held their 2-month-old daughter. "This is a nice neighborhood with lots of kids in it. It wouldn't be a good situation for troubled youth and have them have a chance to influence our other youth."
He wants to protect his family as well as the value of his home, he said.
"I want a place where my daughter can play outside and not worry about anything happening."
Posted by ironwoman on August 12, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
State Law needs to be revisited in this case. If anyone in the CITY of FILLMORE is concerned about this home, please write to your SENATOR, GEORGE RUNNER and ASSEMBLYWOMAN, AUDRA STRICKLAND.
Group homes are not as safe as Social Services and County Agencies would want you to believe. In June 2007, a Group home advisor was killed by a 16 year-old gang member residing in the home. The gang member was placed in the home by the County and Social Servies, a level 12 home for 6 or less juvenile offenders. Neighbors had no knowledge of this home in their neighborhood.
This should not be ! ! !! ! !
As taxpayers and law-abiding citizens, we should have the rights to protect our neighborhood! ! ! !
If the GROUP HOME OPERATOR has a spouse with a long criminal record, how can the Counties and State Agencies send these troubled youths to this home?
If Jared Aparicio is the HOMEOWNER, WHY ON EARTH would County and State AGENCIES send troubled youths to his legally owned home? Sounds like a conflict to me.
Posted by elisacassino on August 12, 2007 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a nationwide problem, here in Connecticut we are experiencing the same, I don't know how there could be a compromise. The home owners have every right to be concerned about the safety of their children as well as the value of their homes. And these troubled children would not feel unwanted in the neighborhood.I agree with Mr. Nelson, about finding a more suitable location. How about the old Rancho Sespe, is it still abanded, that would be perfect location. Just a thought. Good luck.
Posted by suejones on August 12, 2007 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I live down the street from the proposed group home. I have worked at Casa Pacifica and Gateway Community School dealing with these particular kids. The kids that will probably be placed there are going to be from other counties or cities. Most of the kids placed will have substance abuse problems and most likely gang ties from there former communities. I do not think this would be a good mix for this neighborhood when North Fillmore has had major gang issues lately. We are only a couple of blocks from it and sometimes it wonders onto our block. I would not be suprised if the local gang members seek out this house and its occupants for "some fun". It is not going to benefit our county like Mrs. Aparicio says.
All I can say is it sounds like she just wants the money to me. Lets do the math. $5,613 per child per month at 6 kids living there. Lets see, that is $33,678 a month. That is a whopping $404,136 dollars a year. Sounds like GREED. She does not care about the community she lives in or anyone else.
GREED, GREED, MONEY , MONEY, THAT IS ALL SHE IS AFTER!!!
Posted by elisacassino on August 12, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Suejones: Never thought of that but you have a very good point. Reading the article again, after your well writen comment, yes you are right. Now, if she thinks this will benefit these kids and she claims to have on-hand experience why is she and her husband are moving out with their 4 yr, old, 3 yr, old and 10 month baby? I think Mrs. Aparicio should live right next door to this group home and take responsibilty and not rely on "trained staff" because if something goes wrong, all she will do is blame it on the staff. Again, a $ benefit for them. Why don't they stick around if they think this is a great idea, so now they plan on leaving the neighborhood so the neighborhood can deal with their great idea.
Posted by riverathon on August 12, 2007 at 10:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is my understanding, and we all have done our research, that the Aparicio's were supposed to embrace and make themselves known to this neighborhood of thier intentions. They have failed to do this. Naomi Aparicio states that her husband Jared is starting his own business, well I sure would like to know in what? Jared has an eight page criminal record. Naomi's chances of successfully opening a group home or any other business would be better if she were not associated with Jared much less married to this man. YES I ALSO BELIEVE THAT HER REAL MOTIVATION HERE IS THE $$$$$
If Naomi Aparicio really does have a college degree why doesn't she put it to use in a real job, I'm sure one of the home child care facilities right accross from her group home would gladly care for her young children.
Posted by ironwoman on August 12, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SueJones: I believe that the County of Ventura will be placing these troubled youths as well. According to the newspaper article, they stated that they always need placements.
Regardless if they are from our county, the fact is they will have criminal backgrounds. That is not appropriate for a family oriented neighborhood.
I didn't think of the whopping $404,000 a year. It will most likely go to the "trained" staff who will be earning $30.00/hour. It is a non-profit organization so how could they be making any $$$ out of it?
As far as the neighborhood is concerned, I live in it and at no time did the Aparicio's properly inform the neighbors of their intentions. In fact, they lied and told the realtor, Keller Williams, that they were not going to open up a group home. The other realtor, who is Jared Aparicio's sister, also lied about it after she informed neighbors that the home was in fact going to be a group home. She should lose her license for dishonesty.
Also, according to the Newspaper Article, why is Yolanda Langdon writing the program manual for the group home when the Administrator/President Naomi Aparicio should be writing it?
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 12, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
suejones,I agree with your comment that they would be sticking these kids right next to gang members homes. ALOT OF THEM............ And more then likely there will be conflict. Rocks thrown, fights , drive bys, the usual for Fillmore.
honestopinion ,Very good points also. I do believe its for the money!
Posted by lynette on August 12, 2007 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really think all of you are over reacting...I understand all your concerns, but group holmes are very well organized with alot of support. The kids that will be residing there would probably be almost ready to complete the program and just need a little more support to return to socity.
I don't agree with the greed comments, because out of that money she needs to pay bills, staff, morgage, food, and not to mention clothes for all the kids in the home. I think this is a great think she is doing and don't think she nor her family should be judged the way they are for trying to help kids in need.. You never know when it could happed to you or one of your family members. No one is perfect!! May God bless you with your group home and touch the lives of those in need Mrs. Aparicio...
Posted by giamaria on August 12, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can it be for the money, if it is a nonprofit?
Posted by balert4all on August 12, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After reading the article in this morning's paper and followed by the comments in this website: Lynette. Maybe you should purchase one of the homes that will be up for sale if the Group Home is licensed. Then you can be close and near these kids in need.
I just pray to God that you don't have any children that will be exposed to these unstable teens.
Good luck to the neighbors who have the right to address their concerns and issues for the rest of our society.
Posted by giamaria on August 12, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To "let's do the math Sue Jones", let's do some english... "Non"profit means "not for profit". After payments for housing, utilities, food, clothing, staff,etc there is "NO profit" left. Non-profits must be approved by the federal and state government and must follow the strict guidelines. Know your facts before you speak unintelligently.
Posted by MaryMay on August 12, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone know Mrs.Aparicio personally to make such rude comments on how she is only in it for the $$$ ? Non-profit's are well organized and the $ is all accounted for...besides typical costs of rent, staff, food, clothing, there has gotta be expensive sevices for actual treatment to the kids, like counseling and such.
WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE ANYONE???
Sounds to me like the residents of Hometown are very mean spirited... what happend to "Love thy neighbor." We must remember one of these kids could be one of our own, a family member or a friend.
The day will come when we are all faced with our actions and reactions, and this lady is trying to do a positive thing for kids in our society... why is everyone bashing her and making this into such a negative thing? Good luck Mrs.Aparicio and continue to ignore those evil neighbors.
Lynette: It's good to know there are still other good people who have the love of Christ in them.
P.S. I would buy a home there if they actually put them up for sale! Every town is surrounded with kids who have made mistakes, we should not fear them...only love them!
Posted by VoiceofReason54 on August 12, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To all the neighbors. I understand your concern, but reality is that you all bought homes in North Fillmore. I have lived here my entire life. There have always been gangs in North Fillmore. Now there is even a gang on the east side of town. The gang member parents live in North Fillmore. Do they even know if their child is in the gang? "Shatony Sargeant, owner-director of Guiding Our Youth, said supervision is key." Gang members are apparently NOT supervised, these kids will be.... Now who is/are the problem here???
Posted by chava15 on August 12, 2007 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets see, Mrs. Aparicio what you are doing is great, helping these troubled teens by offering the much desired attention and love they so wholesomely desire...If parents could only take care of their own then there would not be the need to have such homes...To those neighbors that are worried about these teens causing trouble or whatever you fear, please you should fear the gang trouble just across that park you live in, you knowningly moved into a side of Fillmore riddled with gang activity...HA!...at least these teens as mentioned earlier by another reader will have some sort of supervision...So live with your decision of moving to North Fillmore in the first place...Mrs. Aparicio Keep your Head up, do what you need to do, and I don't listen to those critics and hypocrites who live down the street from you...God Bless!
SH-Indiana
Posted by ironwoman on August 12, 2007 at 6:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fillmore has 14,100 people in it. North, South, East or West....it's a very small community compared to other cities. The gang problem is another issue and our choice to live in North Fillmore is a non-issue.
Regardless, we are not evil people. We are concerned for our own children, our neighborhood and our safety. This is not a selfish act. Please do not forget that these juveniles have criminal pasts and saying that they made "mistakes" minimizes their actions. As a society, we need to be accountable for our actions and learn from them. A mistake can be "erased" like a pencil erases an error on a sheet of paper. Committing crimes are decisions, some not as severe as others but some dangerous. This cannot be ignored.
Having concerns for this is our right and we will continue to voice ourselves.
Posted by VoiceofReason54 on August 12, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To "honest opinion" - was your mistake moving to "North" Fillmore where criminal gang activity is an everyday occurrence?
Posted by riverathon on August 12, 2007 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets see, Mrs Aparicio lied to us as well as to the sellers of the home they purchased about her intentions of opening a group home for youthful offenders. When we were finally made aware of her "DREAM PLANS" Naomi dismissed our concerns as being "negative, selfish, and petty. We moved here because we liked the Home Town atmosphere and we felt that it would be a great place to raise young children. Naomi has not taken any of our concerns into consideration. Just the fact that she lied about her true plans to the very people she should have been trying to make friends with. Her husband Jared has local gang affiliations, has threatened and shown his gangbanger mentality in his actions here with several of our neighbors. It has all been documented!
If his most recent behavior is any indication of his turning his life around, I certainly feel sorry for Naomi she is seeing things through rose colored glasses..So in the second place we all moved here first. If there is a need for these types of homes they should be far removed from neighborhoods where many, many small children play and up until now feel safe to move about.Her plan is to use this home solely as her place of business and she will only be required to be there 20 hours a week. She will not have to worry about her very own small children. Very neighborly of you NAOMI! If it were me wanting to start and open a home such as this I would have been more considerate of the families and chosen an area or home where there would not be so much conflicts of interest. We all love and want to protect our children and hopefully raise them in an environment where we not only have to protect them from youthful offenders, but the very people in charge of thier care who may come into contact with them directly or indirectly.
Posted by smithjc on August 12, 2007 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
why don't they put these places adjacent to facilities like chuckwalla state prison? it's out in the desert where not many people (other than inmates) live and it would be conveniently located for the "children" on their next stop in the system.
Posted by Brotherly_love on August 12, 2007 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Neglect, abuse, and violence are a reality in our world, community and neighborhoods. Instead of
bashing and judging Mrs. Aparicio's motives I applaud her for her efforts to help rehabilitate these kids with the group home. The day and age when you can let your kids play freely outside without regard to their safety has past. I live across the street from a cop, I still lock my doors, and do not let my kids outside alone. It only makes sense that Mrs.Aparicio would have a more experienced successful owner( Yolanda Langdon) help her learn what needs to be done to succeed as well. You can give your streets fancy names, but you still live in the ghetto of Fillmore, less then 1/2 a mile from where there have been more shootings then all of Fillmore combined. Where you choose to live is your choice, and what they choose to do in their home is theirs, protected by the laws of this free country. I will gladly move into that neighborhood when the market price is right, and by the sound of things lots of neighbors will be packing. Good luck to Mrs. Aparicio and may you be successful
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 12, 2007 at 9:24 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by sanity on August 12, 2007 at 9:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's talk about money and the truth. Yes, she will try to collect $400K a year as her gross. She will also have to move out of her house as licensees cannot live in the same home that they are running a group home out of. That means she and her family must move out and live somewhere else. How can she afford to do this without income? She has a non-profit corporation which will pay her and her family to live somewhere else, as board members. It will also pay her husband rent money for the Aparicio home.
Now, if she has no profits, no home? She is either a saint or a not-for-profit fraud!
Posted by MaryMay on August 12, 2007 at 10:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If everyone is concerned about "safety" then why does everyone continue to bring up the money?
Sounds like people are jelous!
Besides, the State does their job in making sure non-profits have all money accounted for...I hope the poor girl makes some money after all this harrassment she's facing!
People stop crying & complaining about what's out of your hands. Havn't you learned that you cannot stop these homes?
Get over it already, it is what it is.
Posted by riverathon on August 12, 2007 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kudos for you sanity!
You hit the nail right on! Naomi has stated that her husband is pursuing his own dreams by starting his own business. His business will be getting rent money from the state of California.
Talk about a huge conflict of interest here.
Did we mention his criminal record? It's public record, all eigth pages of it. Talk about scamming the State. Easy money in the making here all the way around for both of them. I just pray that what happened in the month of June in Visalia does not happen here. A 16 year old youth offender stabbed a 55 year old male group home worker to death, all because the youth was asked to go inside and go to bed.
Posted by giamaria on August 12, 2007 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To ROLL_IT_UP - If you had read the article you would have known that they are NOT taking sex offenders.
To "sanity" or insanity - Board members of non-profits are NEVER paid. They are volunteer positions. In fact, I have had to donate substantial sums as a volunteer board member for very large non-profit in Camarillo. Non-profits that receive state or federal monies are audited every year by an independent Certified Public Accountants who specialize in auditing non-profits. Non-profits can NOT pay someone to live elsewhere. This is absurd and stupid thinking. The federal and state government would NEVER allow this to happen.
Posted by riverathon on August 12, 2007 at 10:59 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by top_flag on August 13, 2007 at 2:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the concerned Neighbors, our neighborhood will continue to be safe. Yes the concerns are normal. Everyone wants the best for their famiy and community. Mrs. Aparicio if your intentions are as you say, then my heart goes out to you. It takes courage to move forward especially with such criticism. Even if you have changed your plans from when you first moved to this neighborhood. You still have the right to do whatever you please. Just one request, keep us in mind in future changes and reconsider relocating the center.
Roll_it_Up- You must be ignorant.Did you not read this Home will not accept any sex offenders. Have you personally been scammed by them to make these judgments? A word of advice, be careful with what you say because now days defamation of character can get you in trouble. Your concern is normal, but don't try to ruin someones reputation.
Sue jones- if you are so concerned, consider leasing you home to the Aparicio's. Never hurts to try. They will probably be more than happy to stick around.
Brotherly_Love- you said it Right, what we each choose to do in our homes is our own personal choice.
riverathon-Consider it a blessing that Mrs Aparicio actually made you aware. Do what is best for YOUR family and stop disecting hers. Change has always made others feel unease. Do you know solid facts why Mrs. Aparicio changed her mind and decided to apply for a license right next to you? It's fine for you to voice your opinion and it's also fine for Mrs. Aparicio to change her mind and start the business where ever she wants. Mr. Aparicio would be a great asset to any business involving youth if he chose to do so. Having a criminal record only means he once made incorrect choices. Who are we to JUDGE? Leave to the man above. Change is great. He can have and has had a positive influence on the youth of our community. If you consider a friendly wave Hello "gangbanger mental actions" You need to reconsider, who really has mental problems? All your harassment has also been documented. Easy $$$ all around. Hu! You must know NOTHING on running a legal business. Any business owner will tell you it's not an easy thing. Especially when you undergo mandatory Audits. If operating a business was this easy as you make it sound, everyone would own one. Why don't you or the daycare owners walk across the street and ask Mr. Aparicio what his business is? So you can stop assuming it's the rent. Even if it was it's none of your business!!!
Giamaria- thanks for informing Roll_it_up. Sounds like they have no clue or experiance in operating a business.
To the rest of you enjoy life and live it one day at a time.
Posted by ironwoman on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ironwoman on August 13, 2007 at 6:27 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by chava15 on August 13, 2007 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Props to Top_Flag, Brotherly_Love...
"If any of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone"...So who is casting...HA!...
So which of the neighbors is the most righteous? for those who can accuse a person of wrong doing in the past, consider yours first before you ridicule others (I'm sure your remember those days when you were crazy and wild, remember there is no grey area, either you were a saint or not)...the issue is not the past-actions of what Mr.Aparicio, its that you are not willing to support a system that can help youth overcome years of abuse...put yourself in their shoes, all they desire is some help and LOVE, something the NEIGHBORS don't exhibit...I hope those kids when they move in show you (the Neighbors) what it is to "Love thy neighbor"
Posted by sanity on August 13, 2007 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Giamaria basically says that Naomi is giving up her $650K home and her $4K a month mortgage for the kids and will not be paid in any way. She should be living out of her car pretty soon with those fantastic business plans.
The truth of the matter is a licenssee is obligated to inform and embrace the community as stated in her application handbook. This is probably why she does not have a license by now. She has failed this test. And failed to be a neighborhood asset.
After reading this list of comments you tend to notice trends. And the trend is as follows:
Friends of the Aparicio's call everyone ignorant, selfish, jealous, clueless, criers, complainers,and harrassers. this is part of the reason her application is on extention.
Posted by MaryMay on August 13, 2007 at 8:09 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 13, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For all of you who can't read properly the article clearly states the Mrs. Aparicio has applied to accept sex offenders but now has no intention to do so. That means right now she doesn't but she is open to the possibility. It's probably just another lie to get the community off their back. Like the lie they told the realitors when buying the house. Once the community accepts the house then they'll introduce sex offenders to the house. As for my comments about Mr. Aparicio's criminal history, like I said in my previous post, all you supporters go online and view his record. I have not lied or made anything up, he is a criminal with gang ties, it's public record!
Posted by sanity on August 13, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds like a lot of people here are too busy name calling and defending the indefensible. This isn't about you MaryMay, giamaria or Riverathon. It's about the Aparicio's. Jared has continued his ways with the intimidation and threats to minors at his new residence. (documented). His wife has berated the neighborhood publicly in letter to the city planner. (Documented.) this is not how you open a difficult successful business. How do you defend that?
Posted by MaryMay on August 13, 2007 at 8:23 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 13, 2007 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Crybabies? Do you really have so little regard for the innocent children of that neighborhood to not care about violent offenders being moved into the house next door or down the street? The house will not be secured, they will be able to sneak out or even walk out as they wish. These offenders are not sent to homes like this for skipping school, they are criminals many of whom have violent tendencies! How would you feel if one of them walked out of Mrs. Aparicio's home and into the neighbors yard and did something horrible to a child there? Our kids need to come first!!!!
Posted by sanity on August 13, 2007 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here you go again, Name-calling!
No, MaryMay, the extention is not her's. Done my research. The only way the neighborhood was alerted was her real estate agent blabbed before escrow closed. The previous owner, Sgt. Villanueva, is also very unhappy with her non-disclosure. He was assured by Ms. Aparicio that they would not open a group home.
How do you address a person that calls you selfish before they ever said hello to you.
She has made some childish mistakes in her relationships with the neighborhood. It's time you recognize this and more on to the real matters at hand.
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 13, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MaryMay is defending the Aparicio's pretty stongly and I have a feeling she must not know them personally. If she did she would not deem them fit to run such a home. Without even reading Jared's criminal record, just their actions alone during this ordeal should speak for itself.
Posted by Bambi on August 13, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's better that these kids be in a home environment where they will be loved and cared for, taught, and given the proper attention and supervision than it is to think that they could end up roaming the streets where they could just wander into your neighborhood anyway.
Maybe everyone should consider this as an opportunity to "give back" to the community that you all love so much and help the Aparicio's make this a success. That's the best way to protect your homes and families.
I'm sure that they, and the kids, could use your support.
These people are trying to do something good rather than just complain about how things are do nothing to help fix the situation. And who hasn't made some mistakes in life?
Why not talk to them and get answers to your questions instead of making assumptions?
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 13, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bambi, what makes you assume that many of us posters haven't talked with the Aparicios? If you've read the prior post by sanity it shows how the Aparicio's have reacted to neighborhood complaints or concerns. These criminals need to be in a controlled environment, not our neighborhoods.
Posted by suejones on August 13, 2007 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To honest opinion: I just want to point out something you said about trained staff and their pay. Having worked in group home settings, $30 dollars an hour is absurd. It is more like $12-15 dollars an hour and there is very little training given. Experience needed, next to none. I would think if they paid $30 dollars an hour there would not be such a high turnover rate in employees in this field.
This does not help the situation. You have people are are paid very little to deal with difficult juvenile delinquents, a high turnover rate in employees, and employees who really can't do anything when a child gets out of control or wants to leave. This is when they call the police to retrieve the "runaway" or to "keep the peace". So this group home is also going to suck up the resources of the police department, who do not need to babysit the group home employees, who can not control the juvenile delinquents.
Posted by RC on August 13, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AS Reverend Love Joy's wife would say "what about the children? Will anyone please think about the poor children?"
Posted by chava15 on August 13, 2007 at 11:30 a.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by ROLL_IT_UP on August 13, 2007 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm venting my feeling on this issue on this forum because that is what it is for. You do not see my kids roaming the streets unattended, not only do I not live in that neighborhood I never leave my kids unattended. With that said not all child murders, rapes or abuse happens at the fault of parents. If that were the case we would have a lot more arrests made against parents of victims for neglect. If you think that the only reason kids are abused is because the parents are too busy socializing, drinking or watching football then that truely shows how ignorant you are. Read the national news and see how many kids are abused at no fault to the parents. Don't pretend to judge my parenting abilities, this isn't the topic here, it's that two people who are not suited to run this type of business are bringing it into a community that doesn't want it. It's not a safe situation for anyone involved.
Posted by sanity on August 13, 2007 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
IF anyone is interested in coming to a public hearing concerning this matter, there is a meeting scheduled for Wednesday - August 22 @ 6:00PM at the
Positive Living Center - 808 River Street. Ms. Aparicio is invited as is anyone interested in the the facts of this situation. It will not be a free-for-all event. It will be orderly and there will not be namecalling or disorderly behavior tollerated.
So, if you have positive input, please come.
Posted by RC on August 13, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
if the kids were that bad don't you think they would be incarcerated instead of sentenced or ordered to a group home? Just a thought
Posted by uswdnp47 on August 13, 2007 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am very disappointed with the negative comments made directly at Naomi and her husband. Especially when it appears that one thing that upsets the people the most is the amount of money they are being paid. Sure the gross payment seems to be a lot, but when you consider all the expenses they will incur, they will be lucky to make an income equivalent to a regular job with overtime.
I don’t hear people complaining when police officers and fire fighters are paid well over $100K a year with their overtime. Naomi’s is entering into a job that requires her attention 24/7. Figure how much a civil service employee would make with that amount of overtime and she will not be making as much as you think. Furthermore, unlike police officers and firefighters, Naomi will be personally liable for her business.
Calling Naomi greedy is saying all foster parents are greedy. It is not always about the money. If a home like this really makes a substantial amount of money, we would all be opening up homes like this. The neighborhood where this home is going is only blocks away from the main gang area in Fillmore. However, I don’t hear any complaints about that. I find it amazing that everyone wants more to be done to help children that are less fortunate, but only if it does not interfere with there comfortable lifestyle. Naomi’s husband probably knows this best. He obviously has a past that is not desirable, however if he has cleaned up his life, who better than for him show these kids they can do it to and there is hope. Most people don’t change the circumstances they are in because they see no hope. Based on what I have read, there is no hope in Fillmore.
Posted by dangertinacherry2000 on August 13, 2007 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I KNOW NAOMI AND JARED PERSONALLY AND ARE VERY PROUD OF THEM.YOU NEIGHBORS IN FILLMORE SHOULD FEEL BLEESED TO HAVE THIS COUPLE GIVING SOMETHING OF GREAT NEED AND CONPASSION BACK TO YOUR TOWN. WHO BETTER CAN HELP THESE TROUBLED KIDS BUT ONES WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH TROUBLE AS YOUTHS THEMSELVES. THE BIBLE SAYS "LET THE CHILDREN COME TO ME".THATS JUST WHAT THIS FAMILY IS DOING. IT ALSO SAYS THAT EVEN IF YOU GIVE A CHILD A CUP OF WATER YOU WILL BE REWARDED BY OUR HEAVENLY FATHER. I WONDER WHAT THESE NEIGHBORS WILL HAVE TO SAY TO HIM. MAYBE THEY SHOULD ASK THIER SELF "WHAT WOULD JESUS DO".. AND THIS FAMILY DOESNT NEED THE MONEY. JAREDS PARENTS ARE WELL OFF AND WOULD STEP UP TO HELP THIER CHILD AND ANY CHILD IF NEEDED. YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SO FAMILY ORRIENTED THEY WOULD WANT TO MAKE THESE KIDS FEEL WELCOMED AND LOVED. A CARING HOME IS SOMETHING ALL KIDS NEED. IF THEY WERE MURDERS OR GANGBANGERS THEY WOULD BE IN JAIL . ALL THEY NEED IS A SAFE AND CARING PLACE TO GROW AND BE SHOWN A BETTER LIFE. GOOD LUCK TO YOU NAOMI AND JARED. DONT LET THE DEVIL WORK THROUGH EVIL AND JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE. WHAT A GREAT REWARD YOU WILL HAVE FOR HELPING THESE LOST CHILDREN OF GOD. JUST PRAY FOR GOD TO FILL THIER HEARTS WITH FORGIVENESS AND LOVE AND THE NEED TO DO HIS WORK IN FILLMORE.LOVE TINA
Posted by fillmoreresident on August 13, 2007 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been a Fillmore resident all of my life. One thing I know about this small town is that the people within, will not allow someone to change. If you commit a crime, you will always be known as the person who commited a crime. Yes people can and do change. It is the people with a past that know the importance of a program such as a group home. Have you heard of Judge Joe Brown? He often announces that he was once a troubled person. He turned his life around and became an attorney later in his life.
It is understandable to be concerned with a group home opening up in your neighborhood. However, just because they may have up to six juveniles in their group home, this is the maximum. The start-up costs for group homes are enormous. Perhaps that is the delay for the opening of the home, or perhaps because school is not in session, that may not be the best time to start up in respect to the fellow neighbors. I am disappointed in some of the comments posted back and forth trying to make one person less intelligent than another. However, once again this is the “norm” for people in small town. In reality, you don’t know your neighbors. You do not know if your neighbors have sexually abused, assaulted, or many other heinous crimes if it happened when they were a minor, as their records can be sealed. This is a fact. Please be open-minded. I’m sure you will see that this will not be as bad as you anticipate. Because we are all concerned with the welfare of our children, I would love to see a more positive attitude from Fillmore residents; this makes the biggest difference in raising our children. Best wishes for our community, may we have a positive outlook and allow others the room needed to improve not only themselves, but the community in which we live.
Posted by riverathon on August 13, 2007 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very nicely said fillmoreresident and thank you for not being a bible thumping scripture quoting
horses ass.
Posted by sanity on August 13, 2007 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here comes the parables, the analogies and the god-like comparisons. I wish people could just stick with the facts and leave each of us to our own redemptions. It is so easy to tell us how awful we are when it's in our neighborhood and not yours.
I wish you could all do for Naomi, what she asked us here in hometown to do for her. In writing, she asked us all to pay her, so she could open the group home elsewhere. That's called extortion. what wonderful people!
Posted by VoiceofReason54 on August 13, 2007 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very nice non-judgmental way of saying it,
Fillmore Resident.
Posted by ironwoman on August 13, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Question: I accept non-biased and objective answers.
Should the Dept of Social Services and County Agencies send troubled teens to a home when the legal homeowner has a significant criminal record?
According to the CCLD website, under Precedent Decisions, they deny people who have criminal backgrounds going back to the 1980's, depending on the severity of the crime. There are many cases where they deny appeals because it does not coincide with California Health & Safety Code stating that the home placement will provide a safe and healthy environment. It is the State and County's responsibility to ensure that the youths are in a safe environment.
Though, the Aparicios state that Mr. Aparicio will not be present in the home, that is a statement that will be difficult to follow, considering he is the homeowner.
We would love it if Foster Kids were in the home. I would be more than happy to having them in the neighborhood. However, we are not talking about Foster Kids. We are talking about teens that commit crimes. This is very different and if you have ever worked with this population you would understand the neighborhoods concerns.
** Reminder In June 2007, A Visalia Group Home Supervisor was murdered in the home by one of the teens. Please refer to the Fresno Bee or ABC30 news websites. It's a very sad story.
Posted by riverathon on August 13, 2007 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am proud of the way our neighborhood has come together in oposition of this group home for youthful offenders. If we can reach these children at a younger age, then perhaps there wouldn't be a need for these homes. This is why this neighborhood is not a suitable location. There are many young impressionable children right smack in the center and perimeter of this house. If you want to start hiding behind and quoting scriptures, well then what about" LOVE THY NEIGHBOR"!!! Naomi never once took the welfare and concerns of her neighbors or our children into consideration. Instead she dismissed us as being negative, selfish, and petty. Naomi also blew us off right from the beginning by stating in her flyer that any complaints/comments by us would be deemed as harrassment, in other words we were all to shut up and accept her DREAM PLANS! Yes she also stated that if we would cover the expense of her moving then she would. We all know about Jared's passive/aggresive actions and verbal threats to us here. His criminal record is not a prerequisite for being in the same room as these troubled youth offenders. He has certainly not demonstrated to us that he has changed his ways.
Just because he has been there, done that, does not make him responsible or much less a role model for these already confused, lost children of GOD! I am glad that I don't know them personally! I am not easily blindsided as some posters. Please keep religion out of this!!
Posted by uswdnp47 on August 13, 2007 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand everyone’s concern about the home in their neighborhood. Although I would like to say I would have no problem with the home in my neighborhood, I live in a different neighborhood in Fillmore. I do however know that these homes are necessary and if you consider the number of homes out there to the number of reported problems, it would be like refusing to drive over or under a bridge because one has collapsed.
When a new housing development is created, there are covenants and restrictions that are created with the development. These covenants and restrictions are recorded so that every future homeowner knows what they can and cannot do with their property. In addition, there are zoning ordinances. Anyone who purchased a home in the area where Naomi is building the home had ample opportunity when purchasing their home to know that a home like this could be created. Needless to say, you cannot be too upset when someone comes in a starts a home that is allowed by both the zoning ordinances and the covenants of the housing development.
Based on what has been said, it appears Naomi did not approach the neighbors properly. However, based on some of the postings I have read, she could have quickly gotten defensive if the reactions she received were negative and personal. It is obvious she does not have experience in this area and it would be expected that things may be done that could offend some people. However, I feel she was never given the benefit of the doubt.
Sanity, you really need to know what extortion is before accusing someone of it. Naomi obviously incurred substantial expenses starting the home and nothing she is doing appears to be illegal. Therefore, her offering to move if her expenses incurred are reimbursed is not asking for too much. In fact if all the neighbors really were concerned, it might not amount to too much money per house to pay for the relocation. At least she offered to do something she is not legally obligated to do.
Posted by sanity on August 13, 2007 at 10:23 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by uswdnp47 on August 13, 2007 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Sanity:
I am not here to defend or destroy the group home. However, I will point out when someone is off. Important points have been made by both sides and emotional ignorant statements have been made by both sides. I did look up what you are accusing Naomi of and here is what I found:
Blockbusting – the act or practice, usu. by a real-estate broker, of persuading one or more property owners to sell their property quickly, and often at a loss, to avoid an imminent influx of minority groups.
This obviously does not apply to Naomi.
Extortion – The act or practice of obtaining something or compelling some action by illegal means as by force or coercion.
Again, you should know what it is before you accuse someone of it. Naomi does not appear to be doing anything illegal in creating a home.
Now, I have another term you may want to be familiar with:
Defamation – The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third party.
When ever you post a blog such as this, it is deemed to have been made to a third party.
Posted by ironwoman on August 14, 2007 at 6:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
uswdnp- honestly, do you actually think when buying a new home, the homebuyers are asking themselves, "hmmmm, I wonder if anyone is going to open a group home in our neighborhood?". Let's be realistic. It doesn't come across our minds.
Responding to your comment about Mrs. Aparicio not approaching us properly....No, we weren't hostile toward her when they moved in. We were under the impression that there wasn't going to be a group home because we had been LIED to about it. We haven't even spoken to them. They aren't the type of people you would invite over for tea.
I know there are people out there saying, "come on give them a chance". If you saw what we see and lived in it, you probably wouldn't like it either.
Slander is Slander if it is untruthful.
Posted by uswdnp47 on August 14, 2007 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Honestopinion:
I don’t expect anyone buying a home to think whether or not a home like this will be opened in their neighborhood. However, it is legal and every homeowner there knew or could have known this. I am not saying I agree with that, but it is how “notice” is given. Even if Naomi purchased the house for her family and decided years later to put in a home, she has the legal right based on the zoning and covenants of that housing development.
As I stated earlier, I don’t live in that neighborhood so I have not received the letter(s) nor been spoken to by Naomi. If the postings are true as to threats, misleading letters, etc., those are legitimate issues that need to be resolved. However, simply not knowing a group home is coming into the neighborhood is not being lied to (I am not saying this is how it was).
If someone like Naomi was to bring a group home in my neighborhood, I would be concerned like the neighbors are there. But if they were legally allowed to start one in my neighborhood, I would not fight to stop it. However, I would be the first one to speak up if after it was established it was not properly ran and there were concerns about the neighborhood’s safety. It seems everyone is already convinced the safety of the neighborhood has been compromised when it has not.
I never said the neighbors were hostile toward Naomi and that justified the way some are saying she handled the situation. What I said was based on some of the postings; I would not be surprised if she had gotten defensive if the first few neighbors she told were very negative.
Posted by sanity on August 14, 2007 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear uswdnp47
So you quote Block-Busting's narrow version to fit your argument. Can't do anything about that. But the law is pages and pages long......
You quote zoning and covenants...If you have read the law, you would know that the state has deemed zonings and or covenants in effect after 1969, null and void. The neighborhood, the city, the county have no rights and all laws are superceeded by the state. We are helpless, except to fight!
Posted by sanity on August 14, 2007 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For everyone to see in Namoi Aparicio's own words:
But, we are open to moving the Group Home elsewhere if the "neighbors" of Hometown provided ALL financial means to do so!
>
> Thank you for your "concern",
>
> Naomi Aparicio
Posted by uswdnp47 on August 14, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sanity:
You are welcome to see the legal dictionary that I copied word for word regarding blockbusting. I am not trying to fit my argument.
As for your covenants and zoning, I suggest you reread the law. From what you said, I can purchase the home next to you, knock it down and build a gas station because the zoning and covenants are null and void. That is ridiculous and not true.
This is a perfect example of all the half truths being stated.
Posted by 2t99 on August 14, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
listen people i understand that people are afraid and may not agree with naomi's intentions to better the lives of herself and her family but to personaly attack her and her credability is just child like and dis-respectfull i have known naomi for many years and she is one of the most kind hearted people i know. It is ok to dis agree with someone but try to be an adult about it instead of junior high!
Posted by MaryMay on August 14, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HonestOpinion: You don't even make sense...you say you were lied to yet you say you havn't spoken to them??? How did they lie to you if you've never spoken to them?
You obviously don't know them personally, so how can you say you are speaking truths about what kind of people they are?
And who is "typical" to invite over for "tea"?
I'm sure the families who have had molestation by family member or friend thought they WERE typical people...yet obviously found their beliefs to be WAAAAY off. You just never know anyone, remember that!
Posted by surfmedic91 on August 14, 2007 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Children of god, devil's evil, it's a good way for them to make money from taking care of troubled youth. $5K plus a month for each kid, I'm sure that's only part of it but what a profit. The community isn't concerned with the Aparicio's intentions or their reasons, they are concerned with having the youths in their neighborhood.
Posted by sanity on August 14, 2007 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
uswdnp47
Please stay on point. I'm talking about group homes and the fact that state law supercedes city and county ordinances and or covenants. If you don't believe me call Kevin McSweeney in city planning, Senator George Runner, Assembly Woman Audra Srickland or even Cathy Long County Supervisor. They'll tell you they have no recourse.
The only thing that will stop this home is the Aparicio's themselves, they have a documented history. Anyone, who has lived in this valley for their lifetime, knows the Aparicio's, and all god's scriptures can't change that fact.
I don't wish them harm, I just wish they'd take their scam to the proper venue. They misunderstood the tenacity of this neighborhood & city to try and keep it what it is. They may win this battle, who knows. what we do know, is that the hardest thing to do, is to keep this home open, particularly with their history of problem after problem. The house of cards always falls. There is so much attention on this facility that qualified applicants would have trouble keeping it open. The state already has their number. Goodbye
Posted by surfmedic91 on August 14, 2007 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for letting us know you were done by saying "goodbye" sanity. Possible that this may work if the youths are local but bring in kids from other cities or counties and they will always feel like outsiders being passed around from home to home.
Posted by ironwoman on August 14, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MaryMay- I thought you were ousted by the newspaper for your previous comments but you are back. I don't have to know someone personally to know they are lying. For example,
1) I have never talked to Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon or OJ Simpson and they are known liars.
2) The TRUTH is on PAPER, Ventura County Superior Court Case Inquiries says it all. That is the TRUTH.
You obviously have a biased opinion and I have an honestopinion.
God Bless you.
Posted by mobile13 on August 15, 2007 at 3:33 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by AnnaWhaat on August 16, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Come on! Do you really believe that all the new people who moved to North Fillmore were told by thier relator that it was riddled with gangs! No they can not say that when selling a house ! Now people are realizing thier mistakes ! I am all for helping these children.......but there has got to be another area of town, say Bardsdale, Guiberson,Cliff or Grand ave. That would be more suitable?
AND in the first article it DID SAY she would be willing to take sex offenders !!!!! So dont pretend people are making things up ! Read that past articles of her plans. Maybe she has since changed her mind. BUT read the first article that came out !!!!!!!!!!
Roll it up, Whats the Birthdate? I agree with your comment she did say that in the beginning and is probably lying as she did when she bought the house!
Posted by mobile13 on August 16, 2007 at 2:33 p.m.
(This thread was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by smeza2 on October 6, 2007 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Trained individuals who work at group homes earn from $13 to $19 an hour. They do not earn $30 and hour. I've known people who work at group homes in Santa Barbara and the San Fernando Valley. All individuals had a university degree (B.A) and years of experience. I am also under the strong impression that the Aparicios are looking to make money. Fillmore is not the city for this. They will be doing a huge disservice to our small town. Has she mentioned anything about hiring a child psychologist and various therapists that will be on-site daily? The group home located on Bath St. in Santa Barbara (I don't remember the name of the group home) had at least one therapist or psychologist on-site at all times.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.