Assisted living facility and group home; no more than 8 aged, infirmed, etc., persons shall reside. (HB967)

Introduced By

Del. Chris Peace (R-Mechanicsville)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Assisted living facilities; zoning.  Expands certain provisions that currently apply to the Counties of Arlington and York statewide. The existing provisions declare that zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight aged, infirm, or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons as residential occupancy by a single family. Amends § 15.2-2291, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
01/13/2010Committee
01/13/2010Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10103869D
01/13/2010Referred to Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns
01/21/2010Assigned CC & T sub: #2
01/28/2010Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (10-Y 0-N)
01/29/2010Reported from Counties, Cities and Towns with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/29/2010Committee substitute printed 10104793D-H1
02/01/2010Read first time
02/02/2010Read second time
02/02/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10104793D-H1
02/02/2010Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB967H1
02/03/2010Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE(98-Y 0-N)
02/03/2010Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N)
02/03/2010VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2010Constitutional reading dispensed
02/04/2010Referred to Committee on Local Government
03/02/2010Reported from Local Government with substitute (14-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/02/2010Committee substitute printed 10105230D-S1
03/04/2010Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/05/2010Read third time
03/05/2010Reading of substitute waived
03/05/2010Committee substitute agreed to 10105230D-S1
03/05/2010Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB967S1
03/05/2010Passed Senate with substitute (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/08/2010Placed on Calendar
03/09/2010Senate substitute agreed to by House 10105230D-S1 (97-Y 0-N)
03/09/2010VOTE: --- ADOPTION (97-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/22/2010Enrolled
03/22/2010Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB967ER)
03/22/2010Signed by Speaker
03/25/2010Signed by President
04/13/2010Governor's recommendation received by House
04/20/2010Placed on Calendar
04/21/2010House concurred in Governor's recommendation (95-Y 0-N)
04/21/2010VOTE: --- ADOPTION (95-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/21/2010Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/21/2010G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/21/2010Reenrolled
04/21/2010Reenrolled bill text (HB967ER2)
04/21/2010Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/21/2010Signed by President as reenrolled
04/21/2010Enacted, Chapter 847 (effective 7/1/10)
04/21/2010G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0847)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 1 minute.

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: SB338.

Comments

L.L. writes:

Sorry to be dense, but what is the intent of this bill - original and substitute? It sounds like it may make it easier for small facilities to locate in neighborhoods. Am I getting it wrong?

Dave writes:

One disturbing thing about this bill is that it equates someone currently doing something illegal (using illegal drugs) with someone who MIGHT have done something at some time in the past, no matter how long ago it might have been

This bill could have the effect of banning anyone who is a registered sex offender from facilities such as convalescent homes.

Sexual assault is indeed a documented problem in assisted living and convalescent facilities. Such assaults are usually carried out by alzheimer's patients, who may not even be aware of what they are doing, or by staff (who are definitely aware.)

This is cruel and shameful legislation that is driven by money. Delegate Peace has taken a lot of money from realtors, and it's payback time.

Stephen writes:

This guy is taken in alot of money, people need to look harder at where its comming from, and start checking on them. Where theres money, theres dirt.

Mary writes:

According to this SB338 is identical.
Well, not since the admedment was added to HB967 adding sex offenders.

We find HB967H1 extremely troubling in that it would ban ANYONE listed on the Sex Offender Registry from receiving the care and services they might need to live, recoup or age with dignity.

While we believe that the homes and facilities in which care is given should be apprised of the individuals status as being listed on the Sex Offender Registry, this type of care is a right we should extend to all citizens within a civilized society. Caring for the sick, the injured, and the elderly is a responsibility not a luxury.

This bill has just outlawed any married Registered Offender from entering such a facility with their spouse. Now the spouse will have to make the decision do they get the care they need or do they stay with their spouse.

Assisted care facilities deal with and are equipped to deal with those who are acting inappropriately or placing other residents at risk. Many have Alzheimer’s and are confused and combative. These problems are a given and the caregivers are equipped to cope with them.

The facilities then in question are the assisted living facilities where little care is needed and supervision is limited. These facilities already have the right and responsibility to move those in need of more intensive care to other facilities where that care can be given. To totally ban Registered Sex Offenders from these facilities without providing another option for them is shameful. Virginia’s homeless shelters have already banned Registered Sex Offenders and now possibly rehabilitation and assisted living facilities, what’s next hospitals? The only alternative is for Virginia to provide rehabilitation and assisted living facilities where RSO’s and their spouses can receive the same quality of care and there are enough facilities throughout Virginia that they can stay in their current community. Until those facilities are built and ready to serve these citizens, this type of legislation should not even be proposed.

This bill virtually ensures that some elderly or mentally handicapped person will be left to die in the streets of Virginia if he/she has no family to look after them in their old age.

Would Virginia really prohibit a man or woman from the care they need simply because they made one mistake which they had paid for decades earlier? We should hope not.

The unreformed offenders by this age would still be in jail or under the care of the SVP treatment center. So this bill only punishes those who have already paid their dept to society. Do we now pass laws simply out of fear without conscience?

Not only is this bill now appeasing the paranoia of the general public, it condones it.

We once lived in a country where equal protection under the law was a constitutional right, do we need to amend this to include, unless we are scared with no reason?

Do not turn our country, our state into the Land of the outcast, and the home of the scared.

Thus far we have purposefully avoided making any references to the Holocaust, but the parallels are becoming too much to ignore. I cannot help but reflect upon the chapter in Schindler’s List called the Liquidation of the Ghetto. During that chapter the sick and infirm were euthanized to spare them the horrors to follow. Our belief is that if this bill were to become law that it should be amended to allow for State Sponsored Euthanasia. This at least is more dignified and humane than to force one to die in the streets, alone and cold. You may think this a bit melodramatic, but we ask you to consider how inhumane this bill has become?

Mary writes:

This bill was rewritten to be identical to SB338 which had already passed through both chambers. In other words HB967 is not really needed, SB338 got there first.

Tess writes:

Mary,
Thank you for speaking out for the rapist. They are entitled to all the benefits of society. My daughter may die alone on the streets because she was raped. She was a 29 year old virgin, adult dependent child. She lost her mind. It has been almost five years, my health is going. She is physically disabled and has chronic health problems. A state hospital, because they are convicted sex offenders, sounds fair to me. I have given my all so my innocent child doesn't pay that price also. It is my constant fear. If I can't keep it all going she ends up in Central State. ARE ALL CRIMINALS VICTIMS?? As far as I can tell, I would be Schindler: My daughter would be the sick, disabled, victim: and you? You seem to suggest society should just ignore sex crimes, by holding the crime against the offender and trying to protect society from future acts the government is functioning properly.