Letter to the Editor

Again I am writing on behalf of my wife Wilma, myself and many of my neighbors in opposition to the proposed zoning changes and conditional use permits to locate drug and alcohol recovery housing at 118 and 121 W. Erwin in Kingfisher. In my previous letter I addressed the following issues:

Negative effect on quiet peaceful neighborhood.

Reduction in property values in surrounding area.

Reduction of security and serenity of area.

Two blocks from Head Start facility.

Three blocks from Kingfisher Public School.

One failure in the program could create a real danger to the area.

Removes feeling of safety for Senior Walkers in area.

Would you locate such next to your residence?

Surely there are more spacious places to locate these facilities.

Now we want to address other concerns to be considered as this decision is made:

How much liability insurance should be required?

These locations would no longer be single family homes but “leased dormitory” type dwellings. Do the structures meet fire and safety codes required of structures housing multiple unrelated persons?

Should there not be occupancy restrictions for the safety of all occupants?

If locked down as has been indicated, what are the safety concerns for the patients in case of an emergency situation?

Are there tornado or storm shelters available?

When patients require medication, will trained medical staff be available on site?

If medical emergency arrives will our city be burdened with the additional expense of transportation and is our hospital equipped to handle these types of patients?

These are questions which should be addressed. Again, we fully support a program of this nature, however we just do not feel the structures are adequate or the location is right. Larger structures located in a more spacious surrounding would be a much better alternative.

Robert Wehrenberg

Kingfisher