Do we really want to Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1?

[Guest guest]

This was sent to the listserv by a group called ADAPT. I have asked Ven Sequenzia to annotate it with his thoughts, which closely mirror my own and many other parents of children with autism. Bottom Line: Although ADAPT would like to have this bill killed, most of us do not.

----- Forwarded Message ----To: deniseslist@...Sent: Wed, April 14, 2010 9:26:27 PMSubject: Re: To Ven: Please review

:

This is not what this bill does. Many of the comments in this email are inflammatory and are not based in fact. Please read my responses after each concern in blue font with yellow background.

Regards, Ven Sequenzia President Autism Society of America State of Florida Chapter

A Message From ADAPTTo: Chapman

Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1What it doesThe bill creates “Planned Residential Communities†for people with developmental disabilities and removes the 1000 ft. siting limit in FS 419. Communities must be sited on at least 10 acres with unified control. The current limit prevents group homes from being closer than 1000 ft apart unless approved by local government.

First of all, the addition of the acreage requirement was not in the original bill. A legislator added this verbiage, not the proponents. Also, it has been changed to 8 acres. That being said, I don't feel that there should be a limit in size, but for the bill to proceed, it was understood that it had to be in there. Furthermore, this bill does not change the 1,000 foot rule for group homes in the community at large. It only addresses homes located within the planned residential community itself.

Why is it important?There is nothing in this bill that prevents planned communities from becoming institutions or at best, housing projects for people with developmental disabilities. Institutions have a very checkered record serving people with developmental disabilities in this state and others. As a result, the bill represents the most important shift in more than 30 years in terms of how adults with disabilities are served in Florida and it represents a total reversal of the mainstreaming of children with disabilities while they are in public schools.

This is another inflammatory statement and is not based in fact. Most institutions of the past were state run facilities. The intent of this bill is to allow intentional communities to be created where individuals with disabilities and their families choose to live there. I doubt many families would choose what is described by Adapt. There is no intent to create segregated institutions. Why does this bill need to die?1. This bill does not direct the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) to license these communities in total. APD will only be able to license the individual residences in the community. Since the bill does not prevent sheltered

workshops, medical and other services from being in these communities, then there will be no way to oversee how the total “community†is operating.

There is nothing that happens to or for individuals served by APD that is not overseen in group homes, supported living or any of the other settings they license. I am unclear how having a planned community will avoid scrutiny. As for the sheltered workshop issue, I agree that sheltered workshops are not a great option whether in or out of a community, but the existence of one, does not in and of itself cause the community to be an institution. On the medical issue, I am unclear what this has to do with being in a planned community or not. Medical services in close proximity is a good thing.

2. This bill takes away local control over density and there is no requirement that people without disabilities live in the communities.

To my knowledge, there is an amendment that has or will be added that addresses this concern.

3. The backers of this bill want Medicaid Waiver funds from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to help pay for the ongoing care for the people with disabilities that will reside in these communities but these funds are not intended for institutions.

Again, this is inflammatory language and has no basis in fact. These communities are not going to be institutions. The funds follow the individual and if the individual wants to live in this type of community, are we to tell them they cannot? Where is the choice in that?

4. The federal government has indicated they will stop paying for services to people with disabilities in these types of communities which will likely put an additional burden on local government and the state.

I would like to see the law, language or basis for this comment. Again, I think this is merely a scare tactic and not based in fact. 5. There is no definition of what†unified control†means – it could mean a neighborhood association or a single provider/administrator such as you would have in an institution.

This language was added by the same legislator that added the acreage requirement. We had no control over that being added. Furthermore, if you are creating a community, someone needs to be in charge, right? Not sure how that automatically makes it an institution.

6. The provision requiring a 10 acre parcel effectively precludes having these “communities†in urban areas - a form of red lining (e.g. discrimination) and pushes these “communities†into more rural areas.

This is addressed above. It has been reduced to 8 acres and a legislator added this language, not the proponents. 7. Staff Analysis states that HB645C1 will cut money for transportation because of the one-stop-shop approach. We need multiple eyes to prevent abuse of the most vulnerable citizens.

Not sure how this will cut funding for transportation? What does transportation have to do with abuse? The fact is, there will be less need for transportation for things that the individual may choose to do in the planned community. Nothing precludes the individual from leaving the planned community to go shopping, movies, the beach, the mall, work, bowling or any other activity. What do you need to do today?Call Representative Dave Murzin at and let him know that you believe that 645 should not be put on the agenda.

Call Rep. lin Sands and Rep Bill Galvano and tell them to stop HB 645C1 from moving NOW.Do NOT email. We need to generate call volume.

You should know the facts and what the intent of this bill are and not get caught up in the scare tactics listed here. The proponents of the bill are parents that have children with developmental disabilities and they want an option for their child that is readily available to all non-disabled members of society. Nobody is going to force anyone to live in a planned residential community, it is a choice.

Visit http://www.camphill.org/ or http://www.lambsfarm.org/ and after looking at these intentional communities, if you feel they are institutions, then make your calls to oppose

the bill. But, if after looking at these sites, you see what we see and realize how wonderful a planned community can be, then call and tell them you want it to be heard and to pass the bill.

Bill

Galvano

Rules Chair

lin

Sands

Democratic Leader

Call the following legislators and tell them HB 645C1 must not be allowed to pass. We do not need more institutions and there are too many unintended consequences in this bill.

First Name

Last Name

Position

District Phone

Local Phone

Larry

Cretul

Speaker

-Cantera

Majority Whip

-- Kristyn McNally

[Guest guest]

I made my call supporting it. Evidently, the scare tactics have been working because the aide was surprised at my support. We are allowed to make our choices whether it be in a planned community like the Villages in Orlando, or a Senior Housing Development, so why can't there be planned communities for our loved ones? What makes the city of Celebration which was planned by Disney different from having our own city?

To: <deniseslist >Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 9:36:09 AMSubject: Do we really want to Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1?

This was sent to the listserv by a group called ADAPT. I have asked Ven Sequenzia to annotate it with his thoughts, which closely mirror my own and many other parents of children with autism. Bottom Line: Although ADAPT would like to have this bill killed, most of us do not.

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "vsequenzia@ aol.com" <vsequenziaaol (DOT) com>To: deniseslist@ yahoo.comSent: Wed, April 14, 2010 9:26:27 PMSubject: Re: To Ven: Please review

:

This is not what this bill does. Many of the comments in this email are inflammatory and are not based in fact. Please read my responses after each concern in blue font with yellow background.

Regards, Ven Sequenzia President Autism Society of America State of Florida Chapter

A Message From ADAPTTo: Chapman <rac@.... edu>

Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1What it doesThe bill creates “Planned Residential Communities†for people with developmental disabilities and removes the 1000 ft. siting limit in FS 419. Communities must be sited on at least 10 acres with unified control. The current limit prevents group homes from being closer than 1000 ft apart unless approved by local government.

First of all, the addition of the acreage requirement was not in the original bill. A legislator added this verbiage, not the proponents. Also, it has been changed to 8 acres. That being said, I don't feel that there should be a limit in size, but for the bill to proceed, it was understood that it had to be in there. Furthermore, this bill does not change the 1,000 foot rule for group homes in the community at large. It only addresses homes located within the planned residential community itself.

Why is it important?There is nothing in this bill that prevents planned communities from becoming institutions or at best, housing projects for people with developmental disabilities. Institutions have a very checkered record serving people with developmental disabilities in this state and others. As a result, the bill represents the most important shift in more than 30 years in terms of how adults with disabilities are served in Florida and it represents a total reversal of the mainstreaming of children with disabilities while they are in public schools.

This is another inflammatory statement and is not based in fact. Most institutions of the past were state run facilities. The intent of this bill is to allow intentional communities to be created where individuals with disabilities and their families choose to live there. I doubt many families would choose what is described by Adapt. There is no intent to create segregated institutions. Why does this bill need to die?1. This bill does not direct the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) to license these communities in total. APD will only be able to license the individual residences in the community. Since the bill does not prevent sheltered

workshops, medical and other services from being in these communities, then there will be no way to oversee how the total “community†is operating.

There is nothing that happens to or for individuals served by APD that is not overseen in group homes, supported living or any of the other settings they license. I am unclear how having a planned community will avoid scrutiny. As for the sheltered workshop issue, I agree that sheltered workshops are not a great option whether in or out of a community, but the existence of one, does not in and of itself cause the community to be an institution. On the medical issue, I am unclear what this has to do with being in a planned community or not. Medical services in close proximity is a good thing.

2. This bill takes away local control over density and there is no requirement that people without disabilities live in the communities.

To my knowledge, there is an amendment that has or will be added that addresses this concern.

3. The backers of this bill want Medicaid Waiver funds from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to help pay for the ongoing care for the people with disabilities that will reside in these communities but these funds are not intended for institutions.

Again, this is inflammatory language and has no basis in fact. These communities are not going to be institutions. The funds follow the individual and if the individual wants to live in this type of community, are we to tell them they cannot? Where is the choice in that?

4. The federal government has indicated they will stop paying for services to people with disabilities in these types of communities which will likely put an additional burden on local government and the state.

I would like to see the law, language or basis for this comment. Again, I think this is merely a scare tactic and not based in fact. 5. There is no definition of what†unified control†means – it could mean a neighborhood association or a single provider/administra tor such as you would have in an institution.

This language was added by the same legislator that added the acreage requirement. We had no control over that being added. Furthermore, if you are creating a community, someone needs to be in charge, right? Not sure how that automatically makes it an institution.

6. The provision requiring a 10 acre parcel effectively precludes having these “communities†in urban areas - a form of red lining (e.g. discrimination) and pushes these “communities†into more rural areas.

This is addressed above. It has been reduced to 8 acres and a legislator added this language, not the proponents. 7. Staff Analysis states that HB645C1 will cut money for transportation because of the one-stop-shop approach. We need multiple eyes to prevent abuse of the most vulnerable citizens.

Not sure how this will cut funding for transportation? What does transportation have to do with abuse? The fact is, there will be less need for transportation for things that the individual may choose to do in the planned community. Nothing precludes the individual from leaving the planned community to go shopping, movies, the beach, the mall, work, bowling or any other activity. What do you need to do today?Call Representative Dave Murzin at and let him know that you believe that 645 should not be put on the agenda.

Call Rep. lin Sands and Rep Bill Galvano and tell them to stop HB 645C1 from moving NOW.Do NOT email. We need to generate call volume.

You should know the facts and what the intent of this bill are and not get caught up in the scare tactics listed here. The proponents of the bill are parents that have children with developmental disabilities and they want an option for their child that is readily available to all non-disabled members of society. Nobody is going to force anyone to live in a planned residential community, it is a choice.

Visit http://www.camphill .org/ or http://www.lambsfar m.org/ and after looking at these intentional communities, if you feel they are institutions, then make your calls to oppose

the bill. But, if after looking at these sites, you see what we see and realize how wonderful a planned community can be, then call and tell them you want it to be heard and to pass the bill.

Bill

Galvano

Rules Chair

lin

Sands

Democratic Leader

Call the following legislators and tell them HB 645C1 must not be allowed to pass. We do not need more institutions and there are too many unintended consequences in this bill.

First Name

Last Name

Position

District Phone

Local Phone

Larry

Cretul

Speaker

-Cantera

Majority Whip

-- Kristyn McNally

[Guest guest]

I made my call supporting it. Evidently, the scare tactics have been working because the aide was surprised at my support. We are allowed to make our choices whether it be in a planned community like the Villages in Orlando, or a Senior Housing Development, so why can't there be planned communities for our loved ones? What makes the city of Celebration which was planned by Disney different from having our own city?

To: <deniseslist >Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 9:36:09 AMSubject: Do we really want to Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1?

This was sent to the listserv by a group called ADAPT. I have asked Ven Sequenzia to annotate it with his thoughts, which closely mirror my own and many other parents of children with autism. Bottom Line: Although ADAPT would like to have this bill killed, most of us do not.

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "vsequenzia@ aol.com" <vsequenziaaol (DOT) com>To: deniseslist@ yahoo.comSent: Wed, April 14, 2010 9:26:27 PMSubject: Re: To Ven: Please review

:

This is not what this bill does. Many of the comments in this email are inflammatory and are not based in fact. Please read my responses after each concern in blue font with yellow background.

Regards, Ven Sequenzia President Autism Society of America State of Florida Chapter

A Message From ADAPTTo: Chapman <rac@.... edu>

Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1What it doesThe bill creates “Planned Residential Communities†for people with developmental disabilities and removes the 1000 ft. siting limit in FS 419. Communities must be sited on at least 10 acres with unified control. The current limit prevents group homes from being closer than 1000 ft apart unless approved by local government.

First of all, the addition of the acreage requirement was not in the original bill. A legislator added this verbiage, not the proponents. Also, it has been changed to 8 acres. That being said, I don't feel that there should be a limit in size, but for the bill to proceed, it was understood that it had to be in there. Furthermore, this bill does not change the 1,000 foot rule for group homes in the community at large. It only addresses homes located within the planned residential community itself.

Why is it important?There is nothing in this bill that prevents planned communities from becoming institutions or at best, housing projects for people with developmental disabilities. Institutions have a very checkered record serving people with developmental disabilities in this state and others. As a result, the bill represents the most important shift in more than 30 years in terms of how adults with disabilities are served in Florida and it represents a total reversal of the mainstreaming of children with disabilities while they are in public schools.

This is another inflammatory statement and is not based in fact. Most institutions of the past were state run facilities. The intent of this bill is to allow intentional communities to be created where individuals with disabilities and their families choose to live there. I doubt many families would choose what is described by Adapt. There is no intent to create segregated institutions. Why does this bill need to die?1. This bill does not direct the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) to license these communities in total. APD will only be able to license the individual residences in the community. Since the bill does not prevent sheltered

workshops, medical and other services from being in these communities, then there will be no way to oversee how the total “community†is operating.

There is nothing that happens to or for individuals served by APD that is not overseen in group homes, supported living or any of the other settings they license. I am unclear how having a planned community will avoid scrutiny. As for the sheltered workshop issue, I agree that sheltered workshops are not a great option whether in or out of a community, but the existence of one, does not in and of itself cause the community to be an institution. On the medical issue, I am unclear what this has to do with being in a planned community or not. Medical services in close proximity is a good thing.

2. This bill takes away local control over density and there is no requirement that people without disabilities live in the communities.

To my knowledge, there is an amendment that has or will be added that addresses this concern.

3. The backers of this bill want Medicaid Waiver funds from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to help pay for the ongoing care for the people with disabilities that will reside in these communities but these funds are not intended for institutions.

Again, this is inflammatory language and has no basis in fact. These communities are not going to be institutions. The funds follow the individual and if the individual wants to live in this type of community, are we to tell them they cannot? Where is the choice in that?

4. The federal government has indicated they will stop paying for services to people with disabilities in these types of communities which will likely put an additional burden on local government and the state.

I would like to see the law, language or basis for this comment. Again, I think this is merely a scare tactic and not based in fact. 5. There is no definition of what†unified control†means – it could mean a neighborhood association or a single provider/administra tor such as you would have in an institution.

This language was added by the same legislator that added the acreage requirement. We had no control over that being added. Furthermore, if you are creating a community, someone needs to be in charge, right? Not sure how that automatically makes it an institution.

6. The provision requiring a 10 acre parcel effectively precludes having these “communities†in urban areas - a form of red lining (e.g. discrimination) and pushes these “communities†into more rural areas.

This is addressed above. It has been reduced to 8 acres and a legislator added this language, not the proponents. 7. Staff Analysis states that HB645C1 will cut money for transportation because of the one-stop-shop approach. We need multiple eyes to prevent abuse of the most vulnerable citizens.

Not sure how this will cut funding for transportation? What does transportation have to do with abuse? The fact is, there will be less need for transportation for things that the individual may choose to do in the planned community. Nothing precludes the individual from leaving the planned community to go shopping, movies, the beach, the mall, work, bowling or any other activity. What do you need to do today?Call Representative Dave Murzin at and let him know that you believe that 645 should not be put on the agenda.

Call Rep. lin Sands and Rep Bill Galvano and tell them to stop HB 645C1 from moving NOW.Do NOT email. We need to generate call volume.

You should know the facts and what the intent of this bill are and not get caught up in the scare tactics listed here. The proponents of the bill are parents that have children with developmental disabilities and they want an option for their child that is readily available to all non-disabled members of society. Nobody is going to force anyone to live in a planned residential community, it is a choice.

Visit http://www.camphill .org/ or http://www.lambsfar m.org/ and after looking at these intentional communities, if you feel they are institutions, then make your calls to oppose

the bill. But, if after looking at these sites, you see what we see and realize how wonderful a planned community can be, then call and tell them you want it to be heard and to pass the bill.

Bill

Galvano

Rules Chair

lin

Sands

Democratic Leader

Call the following legislators and tell them HB 645C1 must not be allowed to pass. We do not need more institutions and there are too many unintended consequences in this bill.

First Name

Last Name

Position

District Phone

Local Phone

Larry

Cretul

Speaker

-Cantera

Majority Whip

-- Kristyn McNally

[Guest guest]

I made my call supporting it. Evidently, the scare tactics have been working because the aide was surprised at my support. We are allowed to make our choices whether it be in a planned community like the Villages in Orlando, or a Senior Housing Development, so why can't there be planned communities for our loved ones? What makes the city of Celebration which was planned by Disney different from having our own city?

To: <deniseslist >Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 9:36:09 AMSubject: Do we really want to Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1?

This was sent to the listserv by a group called ADAPT. I have asked Ven Sequenzia to annotate it with his thoughts, which closely mirror my own and many other parents of children with autism. Bottom Line: Although ADAPT would like to have this bill killed, most of us do not.

----- Forwarded Message ----From: "vsequenzia@ aol.com" <vsequenziaaol (DOT) com>To: deniseslist@ yahoo.comSent: Wed, April 14, 2010 9:26:27 PMSubject: Re: To Ven: Please review

:

This is not what this bill does. Many of the comments in this email are inflammatory and are not based in fact. Please read my responses after each concern in blue font with yellow background.

Regards, Ven Sequenzia President Autism Society of America State of Florida Chapter

A Message From ADAPTTo: Chapman <rac@.... edu>

Help Kill This Bill: HB645C1What it doesThe bill creates “Planned Residential Communities†for people with developmental disabilities and removes the 1000 ft. siting limit in FS 419. Communities must be sited on at least 10 acres with unified control. The current limit prevents group homes from being closer than 1000 ft apart unless approved by local government.

First of all, the addition of the acreage requirement was not in the original bill. A legislator added this verbiage, not the proponents. Also, it has been changed to 8 acres. That being said, I don't feel that there should be a limit in size, but for the bill to proceed, it was understood that it had to be in there. Furthermore, this bill does not change the 1,000 foot rule for group homes in the community at large. It only addresses homes located within the planned residential community itself.

Why is it important?There is nothing in this bill that prevents planned communities from becoming institutions or at best, housing projects for people with developmental disabilities. Institutions have a very checkered record serving people with developmental disabilities in this state and others. As a result, the bill represents the most important shift in more than 30 years in terms of how adults with disabilities are served in Florida and it represents a total reversal of the mainstreaming of children with disabilities while they are in public schools.

This is another inflammatory statement and is not based in fact. Most institutions of the past were state run facilities. The intent of this bill is to allow intentional communities to be created where individuals with disabilities and their families choose to live there. I doubt many families would choose what is described by Adapt. There is no intent to create segregated institutions. Why does this bill need to die?1. This bill does not direct the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) to license these communities in total. APD will only be able to license the individual residences in the community. Since the bill does not prevent sheltered

workshops, medical and other services from being in these communities, then there will be no way to oversee how the total “community†is operating.

There is nothing that happens to or for individuals served by APD that is not overseen in group homes, supported living or any of the other settings they license. I am unclear how having a planned community will avoid scrutiny. As for the sheltered workshop issue, I agree that sheltered workshops are not a great option whether in or out of a community, but the existence of one, does not in and of itself cause the community to be an institution. On the medical issue, I am unclear what this has to do with being in a planned community or not. Medical services in close proximity is a good thing.

2. This bill takes away local control over density and there is no requirement that people without disabilities live in the communities.

To my knowledge, there is an amendment that has or will be added that addresses this concern.

3. The backers of this bill want Medicaid Waiver funds from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities to help pay for the ongoing care for the people with disabilities that will reside in these communities but these funds are not intended for institutions.

Again, this is inflammatory language and has no basis in fact. These communities are not going to be institutions. The funds follow the individual and if the individual wants to live in this type of community, are we to tell them they cannot? Where is the choice in that?

4. The federal government has indicated they will stop paying for services to people with disabilities in these types of communities which will likely put an additional burden on local government and the state.

I would like to see the law, language or basis for this comment. Again, I think this is merely a scare tactic and not based in fact. 5. There is no definition of what†unified control†means – it could mean a neighborhood association or a single provider/administra tor such as you would have in an institution.

This language was added by the same legislator that added the acreage requirement. We had no control over that being added. Furthermore, if you are creating a community, someone needs to be in charge, right? Not sure how that automatically makes it an institution.

6. The provision requiring a 10 acre parcel effectively precludes having these “communities†in urban areas - a form of red lining (e.g. discrimination) and pushes these “communities†into more rural areas.

This is addressed above. It has been reduced to 8 acres and a legislator added this language, not the proponents. 7. Staff Analysis states that HB645C1 will cut money for transportation because of the one-stop-shop approach. We need multiple eyes to prevent abuse of the most vulnerable citizens.

Not sure how this will cut funding for transportation? What does transportation have to do with abuse? The fact is, there will be less need for transportation for things that the individual may choose to do in the planned community. Nothing precludes the individual from leaving the planned community to go shopping, movies, the beach, the mall, work, bowling or any other activity. What do you need to do today?Call Representative Dave Murzin at and let him know that you believe that 645 should not be put on the agenda.

Call Rep. lin Sands and Rep Bill Galvano and tell them to stop HB 645C1 from moving NOW.Do NOT email. We need to generate call volume.

You should know the facts and what the intent of this bill are and not get caught up in the scare tactics listed here. The proponents of the bill are parents that have children with developmental disabilities and they want an option for their child that is readily available to all non-disabled members of society. Nobody is going to force anyone to live in a planned residential community, it is a choice.

Visit http://www.camphill .org/ or http://www.lambsfar m.org/ and after looking at these intentional communities, if you feel they are institutions, then make your calls to oppose

the bill. But, if after looking at these sites, you see what we see and realize how wonderful a planned community can be, then call and tell them you want it to be heard and to pass the bill.

Bill

Galvano

Rules Chair

lin

Sands

Democratic Leader

Call the following legislators and tell them HB 645C1 must not be allowed to pass. We do not need more institutions and there are too many unintended consequences in this bill.

First Name

Last Name

Position

District Phone

Local Phone

Larry

Cretul

Speaker

-Cantera

Majority Whip

-- Kristyn McNally