FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022672462> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022672462 endingPage "23" @default.
• W2022672462 startingPage "23" @default.
• W2022672462 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Legal NewsFull AccessRejection of Rehab Facility Costs Small Town Big BucksKen HausmanKen HausmanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Feb 2002https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.37.3.0023A small Maryland town is facing the prospect of paying big monetary damages to a facility that provides rehabilitation programs for people with mental disabilities and to one of its clients.Leonardtown, Md., population 1,475, is the county seat of mostly rural St. Mary’s County. The town council refused to grant an occupancy permit to the Pathways Psychosocial Support Center, which wanted to relocate its rehabilitation facilities from a rural setting to a building that was for sale within the town’s borders.After it was thwarted several times by the council and the town’s zoning board, directors of the Pathways center turned to the courts to affirm their belief that the Leonardtown governmental bodies had acted illegally in preventing them from opening the rehabilitation facility.The battle lines were drawn in 1997 when Pathways began looking for a building in Leonardtown so that its clients would have more rehabilitation options, such as education and employment opportunities, than were available in the rural setting where the facility was then located. The center serves approximately 35 to 40 clients daily. (It also has a residential rehabilitation program, but that was going to remain at the original site.)Center officials found a suitable building in a section of downtown Leonardtown that was being revitalized, an area in which property purchasers qualified for state financial assistance under Maryland’s Neighborhood Revitalization Project. The catch, however, was that the funding was contingent on a purchaser’s getting the backing of the town council.Pathways originally had that approval. Two months later, however, council member Daniel Muchow brought the issue back to the council. He indicated he was troubled by having a facility that would bring many mentally ill people downtown. Several citizens agreed and protested at a council meeting the council’s endorsement of Pathways’ move to Leonardtown.The council then voted to rescind its endorsement, which caused Pathways to lose the opportunity to buy the building with the state grant.Pathways then turned its sights on another available building in Leonardtown’s small downtown area, which the center planned to buy with private funds borrowed from a bank. The town council quickly indicated it would not approve an occupancy permit. The reasons it gave, according to Pathways attorney Beth Pepper, were first a concern about lack of adequate parking and then one based on a zoning issue—that a rehabilitation facility such as Pathways was not a legitimate use in an area zoned for commercial enterprises.Pathways then had to turn to the zoning board, which agreed that the proposed use was not in compliance with zoning regulations, though medical offices were allowed to operate in the same area. As a result Pathways ended its loan agreement with the bank and lost the chance to buy the second building.The case eventually went to trial, with Pathways and one of its clients, Clarissa Edwards, charging that the council and Muchow violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by discriminating against people with mental illness.Before it could get its case before a jury, however, Pathways had to convince a federal court that it had standing to sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Leonardtown officials contended that only an individual has the right to sue for violations of that federal law. The court decided in the center’s favor, ruling that Pathways was, in fact, entitled to sue, because the injuries and discrimination it was alleging were a direct result of its association with individuals who have a mental disability.On December 18 a jury at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found in favor of the plaintiffs and ordered the town of Leonardtown and Muchow to pay monetary damages. The town is to pay Pathways $540,916 in compensatory damages, primarily for losing the opportunities to purchase the two buildings. Edwards is to receive $20,000 in compensatory damages from the town. In addition, the jury ordered Muchow to pay Pathways $1 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages. He is to pay Edwards $1 in compensatory and $15,000 in punitive damages.Pathways and Edwards have also petitioned the district court judge for injunctive relief, Pepper said, which would stop the town from excluding Pathways from opening a rehabilitation facility in the downtown area—assuming it can find another building.The saga is not over yet, however. The town’s attorney, Daniel Karp, has indicated that Leonardtown will probably file an appeal. Leonardtown “does not, individually or collectively, discriminate against the mentally ill,” he told the Washington Post.So it will be a long time, if ever, before Pathways sees any of the damage award.And it is still searching for a new facility, but its executive director is pessimistic about finding a suitable one. “We continue to look at the possibility of moving some of our operations to Leonardtown,” Gerald McGloin, told Psychiatric News. “But it’s been four and a half years since we first attempted to move, and since that time most of the suitable buildings in the commercial district have been purchased or rented.”Pepper told Psychiatric News that the verdict is “very significant in that it is one of the first involving the NIMBY [not in my backyard] syndrome that resulted in a jury verdict. The jury clearly found stereotypes about the mentally ill unacceptable and went a long way toward expressing the importance of welcoming people with mental disabilities into its community.”[Pathways, et al. v. Town of Leonardtown, et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. DKC 99-1362] ▪ ISSUES NewArchived" @default.
• W2022672462 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022672462 creator A5008656830 @default.
• W2022672462 date "2002-02-01" @default.
• W2022672462 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2022672462 title "Rejection of Rehab Facility Costs Small Town Big Bucks" @default.
• W2022672462 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.37.3.0023" @default.
• W2022672462 hasPublicationYear "2002" @default.
• W2022672462 type Work @default.
• W2022672462 sameAs 2022672462 @default.
• W2022672462 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2022672462 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022672462 hasAuthorship W2022672462A5008656830 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C129047720 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C160331591 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C2776556313 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C2778627824 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C2778818304 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C520944541 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C127413603 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C129047720 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C144133560 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C147176958 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C160331591 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C166957645 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C17744445 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C1862650 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C199539241 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C205649164 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C2776556313 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C2777381055 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C2778627824 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C2778818304 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C2908647359 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C3116431 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C520944541 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C71924100 @default.
• W2022672462 hasConceptScore W2022672462C99454951 @default.
• W2022672462 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2022672462 hasLocation W20226724621 @default.
• W2022672462 hasOpenAccess W2022672462 @default.
• W2022672462 hasPrimaryLocation W20226724621 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W1925454332 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W2021902520 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W2313800376 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W2409632844 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W2791121858 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W585127845 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W629156983 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W634311634 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W2224694432 @default.
• W2022672462 hasRelatedWork W2289325985 @default.
• W2022672462 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W2022672462 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022672462 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022672462 magId "2022672462" @default.
• W2022672462 workType "article" @default.