New York State MUST Appeal

In regard to Judge Nicholas Garaufis’s decision (Sept. 8, 2009) in a case brought by Cliff Zucker of Disability Advocates against the State of New York, there are many disturbing aspects. This lawsuit was about whether or not NYS violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by referring former psychiatric patients for housing in adult homes. The plaintiffs argue that these adult homes are in affect segregating their residents from a normal life within the community by virtue of the homes being too large, too regulated, and not providing the proper services. The defendant in this case is the State of New York and was defended by the NY Attorney General’s office. The judge wrote a 210 page decision outlining the reasons (all based on newspaper articles from 9 years ago, and misinformation presented by the plaintiff) why he ruled that the State is in violation of the ADA. The plaintiffs demanded, and the judge agreed, that these residents should be moved to Supported Housing units (which don’t exist) because it will not cost the State more than the cost of Adult Homes (???).
Let us for a moment look at the numbers. This ruling was focused on almost 30 facilities all in the NYC area housing approximately 4,300 ‘mental health’ residents according to the suit. The residents of these Adult Homes receive monthly SSI checks (level 3) to cover the rent and for their own spending money. The monthly rent amount that the facility gets is 90 ( per day), which covers room and board, daily housekeeping services, recreational activities, case management services, medication management, three meals (and snacks), laundry, security, and coordination of all outside services such as medical appointments and transportation. It is important to note that these homes do not bill Medicaid and are not health or medical facilities and therefore do not have any other source of funding.
“Supported Housing” is basically an apartment with a kitchen and the necessary services are brought in from the outside at extra cost. These units cost approx. 0 per day per bed (,000 per month). Not even accounting for NYC’s current housing crunch, it would cost the State a conservative 0,000 per bed to construct these units. That means the State would be looking at approximately 0,000,000 just to create 4,300 new beds, and this number doesn’t even include the interest payments or operating costs! The existing adult home system at per day from SSI (half of which comes from the feds) times the 4,300 residents in question is a State cost of only million. So, any idiot (advocates and judges not included) can figure out that 31 million is cheaper than 1 billion plus.
The taxpayers and citizens of New York State should not only be demanding that the State appeal this ridiculous ruling, but we also deserve an answer to some other questions such as:
• What is the real agenda of the ‘advocates’ (Plaintiffs)? Do they have hidden interests in the creation of Supported Housing? Do they also represent housing groups looking for a windfall from the State?
• Are the Plaintiffs really representing all (or even a majority) of the residents of these homes? How many residents do the advocates speak for? Are the satisfied residents getting the same opportunity to be heard?
• Why weren’t the facilities named as defendants with the State? Were the plaintiffs concerned that they would put up a real defense and not lose? Why weren’t these facilities at least called to testify at the trial as to the mental and physical conditions of their residents?
• Why does it seem that the entire case was based on old information as to the condition of the homes, the condition of its residents, and old newspaper articles? Why are the real facts as to costs not represented? Why wasn’t a recent study showing that very few of these residents are actually able to live on their own given more credence?
• Why was this entire case only about the facilities in NYC? If the agenda was really to enforce a perceived violation of ADA laws, why not include all the facilities in the entire State?
• Was the Judge’s apparent conflict of interest (his wife is Elizabeth Seidman, a director/board member of a supported housing group) waived by the State? If so, WHY? Does that explain why this judge takes this case so ‘personally’?
Let’s not be fooled into thinking that the New York Times articles in 2001 describing bad conditions at a few facilities (which have since closed) are the norm in the Adult Home industry. The vast majority of facilities do an outstanding job (even with the limited resources) at caring for a population that would otherwise be homeless, in hospitals, or in jail. The fact is that residents of adult homes are not segregated, to the contrary, they live in the community, many go to work or outside day programs, and get the many services they need within the home. Not a single adult home resident was forced to live there or sign a contract. They chose to live in a place that they can call home and receive the many services they desperately need. Many comments have been posted online from ordinary citizens objecting to these residents living next door to them, with some even saying that they should be moved next door to the judge. Newspaper articles have been written claiming that the homes will be shut down because of this verdict. The sad fact is that many adult home residents are reading all this and wondering who these advocates are and who appointed them as representatives.
Stand up Governor Paterson and appeal this crazy verdict. New York State is facing a 10 billion dollar deficit and doesn’t need to be extorted into making a payoff to those with their own questionable agendas.