Deerfield-News.com-Deerfield Beach, Fl- Dan Herz, a candidate for Mayor of Deerfield Beach, recently addressed the community regarding the approval of a controversial “Rehab Home” by the city. In a pointed Facebook post, Herz highlighted key concerns surrounding this decision.
In his post, Herz emphasized, “HERE is the smoking gun against the city of Deerfield Beach,” citing direct excerpts from a Magistrate’s written ruling. (I CAPITALIZED the most damning part below) What say you, planning & zoning director Eric Power??
It is uncontested in this matter that the reasonable accommodation is being sought for others suffering from substance use disorder, which is recognized as a disability. Therefore, the first element of Section 98-103(e) of the Code is easily met. Additionally, it is uncontested that allowing more than three (3) unrelated individuals to reside together for sober living arrangements has direct and meaningful therapeutic benefits for those battling Substance Use Disorder. Furthermore, it is uncontested that the request for accommodation pertains specifically to the Subject Property for which it is sought.
THE CITY PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY IN THIS MATTER. THEREFORE, WITH NO RECORD EVIDENCE, THE GRANTING OF A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION WOULD NOT IMPOSE AN UNDUE FINANCIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN OR FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER THE ZONING SCHEME OF THE CITY.
**How does Dan Herz propose to facilitate community engagement and oversight in future decisions affecting Deerfield Beach?**
**Interview with Dan Herz – Candidate for Mayor of Deerfield Beach**
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us, Dan. You recently made headlines with your strong statement regarding the approval of a rehabilitation home in Deerfield Beach. Can you tell us what prompted you to speak out on this issue?
**Dan Herz:** Absolutely, and thank you for having me. I felt compelled to address this situation because it touches on a critically important aspect of our community—how we support those battling substance use disorders. My main concern is about the process and the transparency of the city’s decision-making. In my post, I highlighted a Magistrate’s ruling that pointed out the city failed to provide any evidence or testimony to support their stance against this sober living arrangement. That lack of due process is concerning.
**Interviewer:** You referred to the ruling as a “smoking gun.” Can you elaborate on what specifics from the ruling you found particularly compelling?
**Dan Herz:** Certainly. The ruling clearly states that allowing more than three unrelated individuals to live together for sober living has recognized therapeutic benefits, and it emphasized that the city provided no valid reasons against it. The ruling indicated that granting the request wouldn’t impose any undue burden on the city’s zoning scheme. This raises questions about the city’s motives and whether they are prioritizing community health over political concerns.
**Interviewer:** You’ve raised significant issues regarding transparency and accountability. How do you think the community can respond to ensure effective oversight in decisions like these moving forward?
**Dan Herz:** Community engagement is crucial. I believe it starts with fostering open dialogues between city leadership, planning and zoning officials, and the residents. We also need solid mechanisms in place for public input before decisions are made. If elected, I would prioritize creating forums where the community can voice concerns and advocate for transparency in all civic matters.
**Interviewer:** The topic of rehabilitation homes is often polarizing. What do you think might be the public’s emotional response to this approval, and how can we facilitate a constructive debate around the issue?
**Dan Herz:** I expect there will be varied opinions. Some community members may fear that sober living homes could lead to disruptions, while others recognize the need for supportive environments for recovery. It’s essential to frame this discussion around compassion and public health, rather than stigmatization. I’d encourage readers to think about the long-term benefits of supporting those in recovery. How do we balance community safety with the need for humane treatment of individuals seeking rehabilitation? That’s the core of the debate we need to have.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dan. One final question—what would you want readers to take away from your stance on this issue?
**Dan Herz:** I want readers to understand that decisions affecting our community should be made with thorough consideration and transparency. Recovery supports not just the individuals, but uplifts the whole community. I hope this sparks an ongoing conversation about how we can work together to support our neighbors while ensuring that all voices are heard in the decision-making process.
**Interviewer:** Thank you for your insights, Dan. It’s definitely a conversation worth having.
**Question for Readers:** What are your thoughts on the approval of the rehabilitation home in Deerfield Beach? Do you believe it will have a positive impact on the community, or do you have concerns about the implications for neighborhood safety? Share your views and let’s discuss!
