I support HB 1659 Local Foundation and Soil Management Fund.       •    This bill will allow our government to provided needed financial support for soil restoration in our community.      •    Unfortunately, we are experiencing slope failure in because developers had not properly corrected it during construction.      •    Our HOA does not have the funds for restoration project of this magnitude.     •    Significant financial impacts to households without financial support this bill would allow. 

I am very strongly opposed to HB1677. I've lived in Martinsville/Henry County since I married in 2004, for 21 years, and I've been a resident of Martinsville for 15 years. So much has happened to this small city and town since I have been here and it's not been good things either. It's gotten worse just I'm the past 10 years even. Political scandals, a family enterprise that basically owns most of the real estate here and has locked out all competition, doctors that are unhonest and just give options out like candy and have been busted for it and more than once, there are high incidences of drug use here, and rumors of businesses and apartments being ran my cartel. If that's not enough there has also been corruption in the county sheriff's office. And now recently in the media there is more current developments of corruption in the city of Martinsville government that could end in a $11 million lawsuit and this city don't have that kind of money. This could only lead to higher taxes etc and that's gonna be devastating to this town. On the TV last night in the media, it was brought to the public attention that the city manager is also trying to be the city clerk and is try to change the rules into he charter that states the attorney here doesn't have to be a resident here in va anymore. The charter says has to be here for atleats 5 years and all her crew new and has no idea about what's all happened here. And the man who she calls the attorney hasn't even passed his BAR. She rather change the charter rules to have her favorite people who will do what she says and push her on agenda instead of finding good qualified people. I just want good to come to this city and people to love each other and look out for each other not pushing crazy agendas. Thank you for your time.

I oppose the move to change the city charter’s rules that govern the screening of City Attorney candidates in the manner proposed, because it arbitrarily weakens the selection process by opening candidacy to far less experienced and non-representative persons. By non-representative, I mean persons who have not yet depended on the health of our community to facilitate building their lives, and are therefore not locally familiar, locally experienced, or locally invested. What is the purpose of changing the rules so that such persons would now be considered? City government appointees are there to serve the specific interests of the people and should be selected based on the likelihood of fulfilling that purpose rather than any other political or social pet-project—Pet-project here means an activity or goal pursued as a personal favorite (of the city manager, in this instance, who herself came out of nowhere, with no local experience, and who has also —through another arbitrary rule change—installed herself as the city clerk, holding two offices) rather than because it is generally accepted as necessary or important. I became aware of the suspect moves being made by the City Manager Aretha Ferrell-Benavides through the excellent and informative presentations and city-counsel meeting appearances of Caleb Robertson, also a resident of Martinsville Va, who hosts an educational show that also engages in investigative journalism. The show is televised on local news and streamed to YouTube several times a week. I highly recommend that anyone interested in seeing what the city government is doing in our town see the show that aired on 1/30/2025 which focuses on this issue with background included. It is to be found at the following YouTube channel (here I will attempt to include the link to the specific post: https://www.youtube.com/live/2MKHOuJJYlk?si=MQoLOZSSwsSRGWbm should it not work, please visit “Johnny Robertson” YouTube channel and see the live show that streamed on 1/30/25) Thank you for your time and attention, Ian Young, 100 Lakemont Court, Martinsville Va. 24112 Phone: (310) 985-1941

The following comments are a detailed follow up to a personal call that I made earlier to Delegate Phillips office. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to HB1677 not only in a technical sense, but what it now represents in principle. I've lived in Martinsville/Henry County since I was born, for 47 years, and I've been a resident of Martinsville for 15 years. Since high school, I've witnessed an entire generation of economic hardship due to factors at a national level beyond the citizen's control. Over the years, the effects of that hardship have been compounded locally by political scandal, a family enterprise that has consolidated real estate ownership and locked out competition, a doctor who ran a multi-state 'pill mill', high incidence of drug overdose, rumors of cartel activity, corruption in the county Sheriff's office, and now, from what I'm hearing from recent local media investigations, developing corruption within the Martinsville City Government that may conclude in an $11 million dollar lawsuit against an already cash strapped municipality. It appears from recent developments that the current City Manager is making moves to consolidate power by granting herself the ability to function in multiple capacities for what would generally be separated powers. Furthermore, a number of new personnel have been hired by the administration from outside states that appear to be cohorts from previous stints as City Manager in other localities, and now, with the introduction of HB1677, an attempt to alter the City charter to allow an 'Esquire' to give legal advice to the city without a Virginia bar admission. All this IN ADDITION to pushing a DEI agenda by partnering with local religious sects in contradiction article I, section 16 of the constitution of Virginia: "And the General Assembly shall not prescribe any religious test whatever, or confer any peculiar privileges or advantages on any sect or denomination," I write this to you as a power transformer has just exploded on our street, cutting our power for the first of what will most likely be many times this year due to the dilapidated infrastructure that the City of Martinsville can't seem to muster the capital to fix. Not to mention the water main that has broken again for at least the 5th time during my residency here. Meanwhile, our city manager is enriching herself with a nearly $200,000 a year salary, pushing divisive agendas and leading the city into a legal dispute that may finally push our municipality to bankruptcy or even higher taxes.

I do not support this bill.

I wish to contest HB1677. In the same way that the Martinsville Charter rules City Councilmen must be residents of the city, I would like for our City Attorney to have some familiarity with laws and practices of the state of Virginia (having practiced law in VA for at least five years immediately before appointment). In regard to the qualifications of the City Attorney I would like for the words "therein" and "immediately" to remain in the charter as currently stated. Ensuring our local government receives legal council from someone relatively familiar (at least five years of experience) with laws and practices of the state of Virginia.

I am available for comments if needed. Thank you.

HB 1987 call for greater transparency of the relationship between the applicant and the approving authority in land use cases. This can only promote good government. It is the absence of such transparency that enables influence peddling, obscures inappropriate negotiations and undermines trust in government. I urge your support of HB1987.

Transparency in government is essential to maintain public trust, accountability, and integrity in decision-making. When elected officials are open about their actions and potential influences, citizens can have confidence that policies and decisions are being made in the public’s best interest rather than for personal gain or the benefit of special interests. Requiring governing bodies to disclose conflicts of interest, including donations from developers and other entities, promotes honesty and helps prevent corruption. Supporting a bill that mandates these disclosures ensures a fairer, more ethical government where decisions reflect community priorities, not the influence of money. This is a critical step in protecting democracy, fostering public engagement, and ensuring responsible development that serves everyone.

Please stop turning Virginia into another California, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Illinois. They are a mess because of leftist agenda. So many people have left Northern Virginia for the same reasons. Why are some of you still using illogical policies? The middle class has been destroyed by the leftist government. Why don’t you stop the hurtful agenda and work with all American citizens and the administration instead of trying to divide us again. This is why many find today’s progressive policies irresponsible. By the way, who allowed our monuments, statues , and businesses to be destroyed? Who wanted to defund the police? It was not the common sense law abiding citizens and leaders. Equality, Liberty for all Virginia.

Please reject HB2175, which would lead to housing shortages in the long run by authorizing rent-control ordinances. 93% of economists oppose rent control, in a poll of the American Economic Association. Economists think rent control shrinks the amount of housing available. HB 2175 would authorize rigid rent control ordinances that can't even allow rents to be properly adjusted for inflation when inflation exceeds 3%. When rent increases are limited to less than inflation, housing providers cut back on maintenance and improvements, according to studies and surveys. By cutting property values, rent control can shrink the tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. It also shrinks housing production: The Montgomery Perspective reported that six developers stopped housing projects when a county government imposed rent control. [THIS COMMENT CHANGES A WORD IN MY PRIOR COMMENT, TO REFLECT THE AMENDMENT TO THE BILL APPARENTLY MADE BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE. THANKS!].

Please reject HB2175, which would lead to housing shortages in the long run by authorizing rent-control ordinances. 93% of economists oppose rent control, in a poll of the American Economic Association. Economists think rent control shrinks the amount of housing available. HB 2175 would authorize rigid rent control ordinances that can't even allow rents to be properly adjusted for inflation when inflation exceeds 7%. When rent increases are limited to less than inflation, housing providers cut back on maintenance and improvements, according to studies and surveys. By cutting property values, rent control can shrink the tax revenue that funds schools and local governments. It also shrinks housing production: The Montgomery Perspective reported that six developers stopped housing projects when a county government imposed rent control.

Collecting of rent on a working person is a deeply asymmetrical act. We must put a finger on the scales of this asymmetry by legislative wisdom or else risk further corrosion of the load bearing parts of society, the working people, be driven into a corner and abandoned for landlord profit. It's unconscionable to allow the renters to control the market as thoroughly as they do. Anti-rent gouging is an important policy need that we must approve. FOR HB2175

Peace, I am FOR the adoption of local anti-rent gouging ordinances! This would be amazing for thousands of tenants to stop landlords from the ridiculous rent hikes. Year after year tenants that live with same living conditions, or worse off living conditions are being charged more for essentially nothing in exchange. Exspenses are continuously rising & wages are staying the same. It takes more time away from the home to maintain a home that is only half way being lived in so someone else can benefit outside of the home one is taking care of. Its up to the people to look our for the people, you never know when you are going to be the person neededing to be taken care of. Thank you.

I am against this bill which would allow localities to implement their own anti-rent gouging ordinances, as it could lead to several issues: State and Federal Overlap: With existing state and federal price gouging laws, this bill introduces redundancy. Statewide laws provide a consistent framework, whereas local ordinances could create a patchwork of regulations, complicating compliance for landlords operating in multiple jurisdictions. Economic Distortion: Setting a rent increase cap at the lesser of CPI or 7% might not reflect local market dynamics, potentially distorting the housing market by discouraging investment in rental properties or maintenance, leading to a decrease in housing quality or availability. Administrative Burden: The requirement for localities to establish an anti-rent gouging board adds layers of bureaucracy, increasing administrative costs and complexity for local governments, which could divert resources from other essential services. Notice Period: Mandating a two-month notice for rent increases could be impractical in fast-moving markets or for landlords facing sudden increases in their own costs, potentially impacting their financial stability. Exemption Process: The creation of an exemption process through a board could lead to favoritism or inconsistent application of rules, potentially opening the door for legal challenges or perceptions of unfair treatment. Civil Penalties: Imposing civil penalties might deter small landlords or those with limited resources from continuing to rent out properties, reducing the rental housing stock at a time when affordable housing is already scarce. Proposed Amendment to State Law: Given these concerns, I propose an amendment to the existing state price gouging law to address rent increases more effectively: Amendment: Add a provision to the state's price gouging statute that specifically addresses rent increases during emergencies or housing crises. This amendment would: Standardize the Approach: Ensure a uniform state-wide policy on rent increases, avoiding the confusion of local variations. Emergency Triggers: Only activate during declared states of emergency or when a housing crisis is officially recognized by the state, preventing unnecessary regulation during normal market conditions. Cap Based on CPI: Set a cap on rent increases at the annual CPI increase or a fixed percentage (e.g., 5%), whichever is lower, during the specified periods, providing predictability for both tenants and landlords. Notice Requirement: Require landlords to provide at least one month's written notice of any rent increase during these periods, balancing tenant protection with landlord flexibility. Exemptions: Allow for state-level exemptions in cases where landlords can demonstrate significant, unforeseen increases in their operational costs, with a clear, transparent process managed by the state housing authority. Enforcement: Establish state-level enforcement with civil penalties for non-compliance, ensuring consistency and reducing the administrative load on local governments. This amendment would maintain the integrity of the state's regulatory framework, provide protections where they are most needed, and avoid the pitfalls of localized, potentially inconsistent regulations.

My property management company raises rent a minimum of 8% per lease renewal, and I was told that by the manager themselves. I am a social worker working for the state and my annual salary increases have been grossly insufficient. I have questioned whether I will end up homeless because of the increased rent. There is no evidence as to why the rent needs to go up as high as it has; the landlords aren’t required to provide any justification. It is causing families to become homeless; this runs off into increased CPS reports for children, increased mental health and substance use issues, etc. when people lose their homes. I am being “priced out” of the city I have lived in for my entire 27 years of life. Please please consider passing this legislation to protect hard working Virginians who would love to stay here.

This bill is fair to all, landlords and tenants. Providing notice of changes to tenants is practical as well as courteous. In reading the bill, I saw nothing that should keep landlords and all of us from supporting it. I do support it. Thank you.

I urge the committee to oppose HB2289 as it puts communities in peril, disregarding neighborhoods and the safety of children. I also urge opposition as we are in the beginning stages of an alarming trend to convert now regulated investment homes that were being used with the intention of short term rentals such as airbnbs to convert from short term rentals to sober living homes because well why would an investor want to operate their business model that is now being regulated, taxed, and scrutinized when they can convert to a sober living home model that allows them to circumvent the laws we put in place not just for the everyday homeowner or landlords but also for SRTs while generating more profit than their SRTs were. Why would an investor not be tempted by the honey that is unregulated, unlicensed, protected by federal government funded by taxpayers profitable business model? Investors rarely live in the communities they invest in, so perhaps it is them that liv e by the nimbyism they claim as their defense against us perturbed residents who love our community. Please vote no.

Let's be clear on what we are defining as a sober living home. These are not just homes that people opt to live in to fight their battle with addiction. A sober living homes as recognized by Virginia is also a pipeline that goes as such - drug use, arrest, initial court date, release to "sober living home" while awaiting another court date. While the gesture is noble, this pipeline was created because judges did not want to see overdoses amongst those awaiting their court cases, the reality is it not only skews the definition of sober living home, but it could also be causing more danger by a: grouping more struggling drug addicts together and b subjecting the neighborhood these homes are set up in to absorb a large number of non law abiding folks who are battling their struggles and all that comes with that - mental struggles, unemployment, loitering, poor decision making and unhealthy acquaintances. Subjecting neighborhoods to homes set up like this with less regulation than even the standard tenant living arrangement is nonsensical. Sober living homes should be subjected to the same, actually more stringent, laws and regulations as all of us renting or owning our homes. Please vote no and help keep our neighborhoods safe.

We have operators and profiteers accusing us residents of not seeing the progress or not wanting to see the progress that comes with sober living home arrangements. The reality is we experience the progress every day, and it is not positive progress, as these homes do not come into the neighborhood peacefully and silently. Instead they come with police calls, fights, guests loitering and urinating on the sidewalk, indecent exposure, drug overdoses and even murders etc. So please, spare that rhetoric. I see the progress every day now, and so does my 14 year old daughter. We now get to see the drug addicts who are awaiting trial, their friends who get to hang outside the homes because they aren't allowed inside the dwellings, their penises, their urine, their trash, their disrespect for the community, we're definitely seeing it. Acting like the people in the sober living homes are law abiding healthy, good decision making respectful individuals is disingenuous at best so why do they get to have special provisions in place when those of us merely trying to raise our families and participate in our community are punished by people whose only real investment is how much money can they make off these homes. Yes we need to provide services to these folks battling their addiction and awaiting trial, but disregarding a residential neighborhood, zoning and coding laws is not the way to go about it as is evident through even the regulations we've imposed on airbnbs which are the closest resemblance on the market at present to a sober living home. How is it we've taxed and regulated airbnbs but for whatever reason we think sober living homes should have to forego the provisions set in place for residential communities and tenants trying to rent their home to the everyday individual. Again, this is not to bash or critique those struggling with addiction. This is about using common sense and real-life examples that tell us time and time again the perils that come with addiction and grouping an exorbitant amount of folks in one home while skirting laws and regulations set in place to keep homes and neighborhoods safe even when sobriety is not in question. There's nothing knee jerking about wanting to uphold common sense laws to protect neighborhoods. What is knee jerking is waking up one day and hearing your kid say mom I think there's a drug house across the street and now I don't feel safe in my house because I'm seeing drug use, loitering, grown men's penises and fights. And yes I have pictures for evidence. I would say that subjecting our youth, and frankly anyone, to said behaviour in the name of profit is knee jerking. Please help us maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and keep our neighborhoods safe by voting no to HB2289

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My name is Tom Jackson, and I am the lead organizer of the Virginia Recovery Advocacy Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the creation and funding of evidence-based solutions to the overdose, substance use, and mental health crises citizens of the Commonwealth and the people we love face daily. I am also a person in long-term recovery from substance use and mental health challenges since 1991, as well as a Registered Peer Recovery Specialist, and an authorized trainer of the next generation of peer specialists. I also was a house manager and a program manager at two CSB Recovery Programs for over 10 years. As Tom Insel, the former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, wrote in his recent book Healing, the fastest way to sustained recovery is finding the three Ps: People, Place and Purpose. And the most significant part of Place is a safe, evidence-based, recovery-friendly place to live. This is also evidenced by the fact that ASAM, the American Society of Addiction Medicine, added certified recovery residences as an official recovery service in 2024. As I read the other comments I am sad and angry about how little progress we have made countering the ignorance, prejudice and discrimination that drips from their words and that people feel free to say things about us in public they would never say about other groups of people. However, there's no better ambassador that a well-run residence in a neighborhood. There are good operators and bad operators, and there are other bills and a study group proposed that address some of the issues these neighbors have. Perhaps combining them would ultimately be the best approach. NIMBYism is partly responsible for the overall housing crisis the country faces. This bill attempts to lessen that impact on housing for some of Virginia's most vulnerable citizens. While It doesn't directly address some of the complaints about specific residences mentioned above, it will make more recovery housing available overall and competition in the market will help the good survive and the others not. Thank you.

Reject vote for bill B2289. I am a grandparent who cares for her grandchildren. We MUST keep our children safe in our community avoiding encounters with erratic individuals who could potentially harm them. These houses are dangerous. They open the doors to expose our children to witness more violence that they already have to face everyday. Enough is enough. We want to live in a safe community. We want to feel secure. We in our community Jackson Ward urge you to reject this motion for our children’s sake. Listen to our voices.

Testimony at the 01/31/2025 Counties Cities and Towns – Subcommittee #3meeting I am requesting a reject vote for bill HB2289. Special note: In Jackson Ward, at 504 ½ Saint James Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, a drug group home has been put in place without notification to the neighbors, the house has undergone significant structural work, rewiring, new plumbing to bring it to the sale of the property and all the work has been completed. No building permits or special use permits have been registered for this address since well before the sale of the property. The realtor and the current owner have collaborated to circumvent all required building permits and inspections. The group home residents are at risk of harm without the proper city certifications that will ensure safety and wellbeing for the residents living in the group home and the attached residents/neighbors living at 504 St James Street address. Bill HB2289 is a flawed bill and it will allow such abuses of the building code laws that help keep us all safe. Kindly reject this bill and investigate the inappropriate house renovation that is taking place at 504 ½ St James Street, Richmond, VA 23219. Thank you for the opportunity to have a voice in our city governance.

I write to express strong opposition to the proposed bill, HB 2289, that seeks to undermine the authority of cities and localities in regulating recovery homes. While I wholeheartedly support the intentions behind the bill, including the critical need for recovery support and housing, I urge you to consider the implications of this legislation on our communities. Recovery homes play a vital role in supporting individuals on their journey toward sobriety and reintegration into society. They provide a safe environment where residents can focus on their recovery, gain life skills, and rebuild their lives. However, these homes come with an extra burden of care and responsibility that cannot be overlooked. The absence of specific, concrete guidelines governing their operation can lead to dire consequences for both residents and neighboring communities. We want to share a troubling example that highlights the need for local oversight. Recently, a group recovery home was established at in historic Jackson Ward. According to the realtor who oversaw the sale of the property to its current owner in December 2022, the house was literally down to the studs at the time and “needed new wiring, plumbing, gas lines, etc.” It was nowhere near habitable, and the work necessary to make it so was significant. But by the time the renovation was complete in 2023, not one permit was ever obtained. Not one. In this case, the owner of the property demonstrated a clear disregard for the regulations set forth by the city, prioritizing their own financial interests over those of future residents and the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, realtor representing the current owner reported to us that they intended to have 8 to 11 recovering residents with 1 to 2 supervising residents, which could mean a total of 13 people living in a 1,600-square-foot-home. Clearly, the quality of life and promotion of recovery is not the motivating factor here. This lack of accountability jeopardizes the safety of those living in the recovery home. Local governance is essential in ensuring that recovery homes operate within established guidelines that prioritize the health and safety of residents and neighbors alike. HB 2289 entirely undermines any means for establishing accountability. And, yes, we know that HB 2289 only extends exemptions for houses with 8 or fewer people. But the exact number of people isn't the issue. Quality of life and quality of care are. Recovery homes are not residences in the same way that single-family homes or apartment buildings are. Their residents are living through a tough and tenuous time in their lives. They should indeed have extra protections, among which are an extra burden of proof of safety, extra requirements for ADA compliance when needed, and extra privacy protections with guarantees of adequate personal space. HB 2289 does the opposite. On the one hand, it states that recovery homes are exempt from normal occupancy requirements. But on the other, it undermines that special status by classifying them in all other ways as residences, providing a shield for operators as well as for property owners for whom the only measurable rewards are financial. This is not only nonsensical, it is counterproductive to the beneficial objectives of these residences. Again, I urge a vote against HB 2289.

I am a Virginia resident that has been living next to a so called “recovery house” for nearly a year. In the time since I have experienced numerous adverse consequences due to general neglect and poor management of these facilities. I have witnessed open drug use and a party house like atmosphere where undertrained staff use recreational drugs with recently incarcerated individuals. My family has been subject to frequent disturbances by erratic individuals, including witnessing violence, screaming, overhearing violent threats, and witnessing repeated overdoses next to our home, often bringing EMTs and police to our block. We have had people come directly from prison to our front door on numerous occasions, while we had elderly family members and small children in our home, and have even had these individuals go so far as to attempt to enter our home and property, despite signage and other methods clarifying that we are a private residence. Furthermore, our property has been routinely disrespected via trespassing and litter, as well as break ins into our cars. When we purchased our home we received no warning about nature of our neighboring house as a recovery center. These programs seem to be little more than a means for connected individuals to make money off of the tragic circumstances of others and do not provide adequate facilities to keep these people away from drugs or considerations for neighbors, and attract criminals and drug addicts to residential spaces. I urge you to reject this motion and to keep Virginia families safe from being unwillingly subjected to living next door to a place that attracts and houses drug addicts and criminals. Recent reporting has shown that not only are these so called facilities rife for abuse and exploitation but that they often are essentially used as kick back schemes for relatives and friends of influential people in local government. This failed experiment in private for-profit recovery housing funded by state money has not only harmed my family and my investment in my home, but also clearly does not provide a safe place for recovery and all too often enable drug use and recidivism via general neglect and access to neighborhoods where drug trafficking occurs. Vote no on this bill.

From John Shinholser, retired: In Support of HB2289 Sober homes have been around for centuries, as have the arguments for and against them, along with the NIMBYs (not in my backyard). I opened my first sober home in 1985, and since then, I have opened, owned, or operated just short of a hundred sober homes and provided technical assistance to hundreds more. I’m still learning things, even with 40 years of experience in and around the sober home industry. Of course, there will always be challenges within the “system” that reflect the nature of mental illness and substance use disorders (addiction and alcoholism). The most important thing to know is that the people operating and running these homes are often those in recovery themselves. This is a very special workforce that should be valued, praised, and respected for performing the most difficult tasks that nobody else can or will do. This creates a unique and incredible, valuable workforce—one that has been scientifically proven to be the most critical component for long-term successful recovery. Just as important is understanding that sober homes provide the desperately needed capacity to solve our state's recovery capacity issues. Virginia’s primary provider of living spaces for our “newcomer” addict and alcoholic population has traditionally been correctional institutions since the late 1980s. Currently, it costs taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Science has proven that this (correctional facility) is the worst housing situation, and sober homes are the optimal solution. There are over 2,000 recovery beds in the Richmond metro area alone. Data shows that over 70 percent of the occupants had a choice between a recovery/sober home or a tax-funded option that averages $34,000 a year at taxpayers’ expense. The quick math makes it clear that it’s a $47,600,000 annual saving to taxpayers, not to mention the lives saved and the families healed. Obviously, this system of care is not a 100% cure for our addiction epidemic, and not every participant has the best outcome, but it is “hands-down” the best we have for our current crises. The vast majority of sober homes in Virginia are operated by “mom-and-pop” 12 steppers, religious ministries, and kind philanthropists who want to help this population overcome their illness and become better citizens of our society. Sober homes are not only highly successful, but there is also no substitute for them; they are vital and necessary. Although Virginia is still in the midst of an addiction epidemic, we are finally making progress, thanks in large part to the growth and expansion of sober homes. The growing pains we have all seen or experienced are just that: growing pains. The worst thing policymakers can do is have a knee-jerk reaction and throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is happening, and this bill helps limit and prevent a catastrophe. Furthermore, positive changes and regulations are rapidly developing, and they are evolving as we speak. All are heading in a more ethical, transparent, and effective direction. This bill adds a vital layer of protection for all of us; even though some of us can’t see or don’t want to see the progress, it is real, and it’s happening. I urge this committee to pass HB2289 Thank you: John Shinholser, McShin Foundation co-founder and president, retired.

Please vote no on HB2289. The Parham Papers, has exposed a system driven by greed, intimidation, and secrecy. My daughter died 4 yrs ago when she was supposed to be a recovery house. She was court ordered there as a condition of her bond. After dropping her off at the organization, she told them her cellmate had covid and she was sneezing. The recovery house took her to Patient First where she tested positive. They called me, stating she test positive, she can't stay here, you have to go get her - they left her at Patient First alone. Seven days later, I found my daughter overdosed on her bedroom floor. The issue with Powhatan is unfortunate, but predictable considering the well-known issues within the houses and the lack of oversight by VARR. I would go as far to say, VARR and owners created this issue and has harmed the community, as their focus is for more govt money and control. Dr. Sarah Scarbrough's claim of this being a case of "not in my backyard" is disingenuous at best. One of Sarah's own houses, due to having a house manager with little recovery time, murdered another resident, but details are protected by an NDA. Henrico residents have been outstanding in the support of the residents - it's the owner they take issue with and his lack of oversight over David Rook's own house. comment from Parham Papers on Sarah's house: This men’s house has ONE bathroom and 10 beds. TEN. I know this for a fact for I have had a resident that was there at one time. How did this house get VARR certified and it NOT be in the 6 to 1 bed to full bathroom ratio? VARR consistently ignores the NARR standards and the oversight little to none. House owners have had recent relapses (hence why Sarah is Pres of VARR), but there's allegedly current drug use by house owners. House owners dispense left behind schedule 3 drugs and is given to other participates. House owners have now expanded to operating IOP (intensive outpatient programs) and then demand their residents attend their program, while other owners receive kickbacks. The Henrico neighbors did not protest before the house opened. The neighbors did not know this was a recovery house; they assumed it was just being rented. According to The Parham Papers - all money has NOT been accounted for. VARR does not share any documentation on investigations - period. In fact, Del Carrie Coyner made it legal to kick anyone out of a house - for ANY reason. These tenants have NO rights. (Hence the intimidation) Comment from The Parham Papers: "As an operator who is VARR certified, the “Professional Code” thing – There is no way in hell would I obey that. Accountability is a core tenement in recovery. They are saying no matter how corrupt they are in their behavior, I’m to keep my mouth shut about it. Silence means acceptance. NO, I DO NOT ACCEPT CORRUPT PRACTICES. I will NOT compromise my morals to condone their unethical behavior. I know other operators who feel the same way I do. They would not touch VARR with a barge pole. I’m trying to follow the law so I’m forced to deal with VARR. I wish like hell I didn’t have to deal with them for it makes me feel disgusting. I can speak for many other operators when I say: When the law is changed and VARR is removed from the certification process as well as the grant process, it will be a good day." ***************Pay attention to the section on Sen. Bagby's brother! YES - houses are needed. But oversight and accountability are NOT occurring.

“either with or without one or more resident or nonresident staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family and that no conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such certified recovery residence.” These facilities need staff to manage resident concerns that invariably arise in this type of setting. Staff should also be available in the event a community member has a concern. In no way does the rental property across the street from me (which is now obviously being run as a “recovery house” resemble a single family situation. The owner lives out of state, someone rented the home, to the best of my knowledge whoever is renting it is operating a business and subletting to residents for a fee (I’m assuming it is not free). When the weather was warmer, people came and went frequently. There were evenings that men were unable to get into the house and were pacing on the lawn and in the street out front. There have been arguments out front, men leaving with trash bags full of what I guess are their belongings, it is a transient situation that anyone observing it would NOT describe as a single family situation. At the least, it’s an unregistered business openly operating on a residential street.

This Bill should be denied. Having these houses in neighborhoods is not conducive to safe family environments. We have one in my neighborhood and tenants are rude, loud and aggressive towards neighbors. Vehicles come and go at all hours and at high rates of speed for a neighborhood. Some of them will walk up an down the street cursing and yelling at anyone that is outside. We've had Chester police, fire and EMS here on numerous occasions. The most recent was involving one of the tenants trying to set fire to his room. This bill specifies that the tenants will not have to have 24/7 supervision. How is this a good idea given the situations these folks are in? Again, I urge the committee to deny this bill.

Please deny this bill. Localities are already experiencing problems with supervised residential homes. Having little to no supervision will exasperate Localities police, fire and EMT support. Creating longer response time and staff shortages for other residences in need.

I am writing in support of the HB2781 and HB 2603 to support counties like Prince William to use VA State Code 2304 for creating an Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance. We are in the middle of a housing crisis, and we need to be able to develop more affordable, attainable, and accessible housing so that everyone can access to live where they work, play, and worship.