The state is withdrawing a $73.4-million grant for the proposed San Pedro rehabilitation center
The state has withdrawn a $73.4-million grant for a new mental health and substance abuse center in San Pedro, putting the project’s future in jeopardy.
Neighbors protested outside the property at 2100 S. Western Avenue and filled city hall in April to oppose the project, with some expressing fear of drug users coming to the area.
The nonprofit Fred Brown Recovery Services wanted to acquire the five-acre property and turn it into a 106-bed inpatient recovery center for “veterans, justice-involved, homeless, and those with co-occurring conditions.” The facility will serve up to 200 outpatients per day.
About 70 elderly people living in a nursing home in the area would have to move, say some opponents of the project. Some say they support general mental health treatment but say the proposed center will be too close to nearby schools, kindergartens and churches.
The funding, which would have covered most of the project’s costs, was funded in part by Proposition 1, a $6.4-billion bond measure approved by California voters through 2024 to improve mental health and addiction treatment.
In a July 15 letter, the California Department of Health Care said it revoked the grant because Fred Brown Recovery Services failed to meet the cash matching requirement and did not correct discrepancies in the inspection document.
The matching funds cannot come from the property’s seller, and the match documents were signed by Brian Dror, the manager of the property’s current owner, 9 Gem Capital Group, said the letter, which was written to Fred Brown Recovery Services. The letter also stated that there is no plan to appeal the decision.
Dror, who owns part of the property, said state bond guidelines do not prevent an owner from providing matching funds.
In a statement Thursday, Fred Brown Recovery Services said it is “reviewing the Department’s decision and evaluating next steps. Regardless of the future of this particular project, our commitment to serving individuals and families with substance abuse problems has not changed, and we will continue to look for opportunities to expand access to treatment for those who need it most.”
Los Angeles City Council member Tim McOsker, who represents the coastal area, opposed the plan and mobilized community members to send letters to elected officials and state decision makers, urging them to review the grant application.
In his post on Facebook, McOsker said that for months he has expressed his concern to the Department of Health Care about the financial structure of the project and the lack of transparency.
Earlier, McOsker had applauded Fred Brown for his work rehabilitating homes elsewhere in San Pedro. But he said he doubted the nonprofit could scale up from 20-person homes to a larger one proposed for the South West area.
“Thank you to the many residents, neighborhood associations, and community leaders who have continued to participate throughout this process,” McOsker wrote on Facebook. “Today’s action shows why comprehensive review, public scrutiny, and accountability are essential.”
L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who lives in the neighborhood and was ousted from city hall in April saying rehab centers like the one proposed are desperately needed, said Thursday that stopping the project “could be very good.”
“There was a lot of opposition in San Pedro, I don’t think this proposal will ever work,” he said.
Richard Scandaliato, president of San Pedro’s South Shores Community Assn., said the turnaround was “unbelievable” after months of weekly tapings and hundreds of letters from neighbors to government officials.
The most important thing, he said, is that the elderly people living in this area can live there. He said he has received at least 100 calls from neighbors since the government grant was withdrawn.
“It really shows what the community can do,” he said.
