To the editor:
I am one of the many neighbors who are challenging McLean’s right to locate a treatment center on Bypass Road. Carol Kochmann’s overwrought defense of McLean Hospital’s attempt to establish a psychiatric treatment facility in a residentially zoned neighborhood completely misses the point of the community’s objections and concerns (“Feeling ‘shame’ for Lincoln,” Lincoln Squirrel, July 2, 2016).
No one in the Bypass Road neighborhood disagrees with the fact that McLean is a preeminent medical institution, with the resources and expertise necessary to treat adolescent males afflicted with borderline personality disorder. Nor does anyone dispute that McLean was instrumental in helping a member of Ms. Kochmann’s family overcome crippling anxiety and depression.
What I object to is the fact that our town’s zoning bylaw prohibits the placement of psychiatric treatment facilities in residentially zoned areas and McLean is attempting to circumvent these bylaws by mischaracterizing the nature of its facility. Notwithstanding Ms. Kochmann’s barbed critique of our motivations, I see nothing shameful in reminding the town’s boards and employees of their legal obligation to administer Lincoln’s zoning bylaw fairly and with due regard for the people who live here.
My disagreement with McLean is not about the good work that they do, but rather the rules and laws that determine where they can do it. Our zoning bylaw strictly limits the types of uses and structures that can be located in a residential district. The state statute known as the Dover Amendment allows nonprofit educational institutions an exemption from local zoning bylaws if, and only if, the proposed use is “educationally significant” and education is “the primary or dominant purpose for which the land or structures are to be used.” McLean is proposing to place in the middle of an established residential neighborhood a locked psychiatric ward where adolescent males will be administered intensive “dialectical behavior therapy” as well as “psycho-pharmaceutical treatment.”
Again, without questioning the laudable nature of this activity, the primary purpose of this use is clearly medical treatment, not education, and therefore not eligible under Lincoln’s bylaws to be sited in our residential neighborhood. If this same facility were located at McLean’s Belmont campus. there would be no question but that this use were medical or therapeutic, not educational. It is only when McLean wants to locate its new facility in a residential neighborhood that it engages in semantic fiction and characterizes the purpose of its treatment facility as primarily educational.
Finally, while Ms. Kochmann’s opinions appear to be squarely based on her daughter’s positive experience at McLean, she fails to realize that what is being proposed for the Bypass Road neighborhood is a fundamentally different program than what benefitted her daughter. McLean acknowledges that this is the first time they will attempt to treat adolescent males suffering from borderline personality disorders (BPD) in a residential setting. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, BPD is “characterized by impulsive and reckless behavior” with “high rates of co-occurring disorders including self-harm, suicidal behaviors and completed suicides.”
The facility will be fully locked, “for our safety” we are told, and no patient will be allowed outside without supervision. It is plain to see why such a program requires the security of an on-campus setting and is wholly inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. Under these circumstances, my concerns about McLean’s treatment facility are neither irrational nor selfish, and I would hope that Lincolnites like Ms. Kochmann would make an effort to understand the nature and complexities of the neighborhood’s opposition before pronouncing otherwise.
Sincerely,
Jay S. Gregory
46 Bypass Rd.
Letters to the editor must be signed with the writer’s name and street address and sent via email to lincolnsquirrelnews@gmail.com. Letters will be edited for punctuation, spelling, style, etc., and will be published at the discretion of the editor. Letters containing personal attacks, errors of fact or other inappropriate material will not be published.
Yes Mr. Drummond, indeed that was a tragic incident. I can not imagine anyone would extrapolate anything from this that we could apply to all young men. If we could, could it be that all teenagers are a danger? Or all white teenagers, or white male teenagers are a danger? Or anyone that is a former patient at McLean’s is a danger? I am sure you agree that would be illogical.
A former attendee of Pathways Academy at McLean Hospital in Belmont, sixteen year-old John Odgren of Princeton, fatally stabbed another 15-year old student at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School just a few years ago. You can see the links below:
https://www.thelandmark.com/news/2007-01-25/front_page/001.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-teen-john-odgren-commit-perfect-murder-or-is-mental-disorder-to-blame-for-high-school-killing/
https://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/28/jury_gets_murder_case_against_ex_lincoln_sudbury_student/
On one is suggesting he didn’t need or deserve psychiatric help. But please, let’s not try and characterize a psychiatric hospital as “low risk” or compare the proposed residents to our high functioning current neighbors, and make it seem unreasonable that we are concerned about the safety of our children.
No one is saying that these troubled children don’t deserve quality psychiatric treatment. I’m sure the vast majority of people in Lincoln would ardently agree. But, let’s not mischaracterize the risk or suggest that the only place treatment can happen is in the middle of a residential neighborhood with minimal security.
I completely agree. As someone living in Lincoln with four young children, putting those children (and 30+ more) unnecessarily at risk by placing the facility in the middle of a residential neighborhood appears irresponsible by McLean, and would show exceptionally poor judgment if allowed by our town. These are not elderly citizens or young girls, but young men that have displayed risky and potentially aggressive behavior. This same work can clearly be down outside of the neighborhoods where the risk to our families, both young and old will be less, and in line with what was legally intended in the first place.
It could also open the town up to claims of gross negligence and potentially bankrupting law suites if the unthinkable happened and one of the town’s young children or elderly ends up raped, battered, or murdered. This is simply too large of a risk to take on too many fronts to not take a thoughtful approach to the discourse and review of the true intent of the law, and in my opinion one of the reasons the Dover amendment was limited to truly educational facilities.
These boys won’t even be integrated in our town, they can’t leave the property. Why should we tax payers pay for them? Why should this be forced on the neighbors who will have to take the risk of these boys breaking out and possibly endangering their families? Why should we have to now share a private driveway with more than a dozen new vehicles of strangers?
Dear Neighbor, many of these boys are likely already integrated in our town however, that is not the point.
While we in Lincoln enjoy a good deal of privileges, choosing our neighbors or their vehicles (or their lifestyle for that matter) is not among them. These boys are no more of a risk than any other young adult and I would suggest, given that they are receiving help, they are less of a threat than some of your or my current neighbors.
Civil discourse, yes, the best kind Mr. Karl.
Mr. Gregory, I have been to a couple of the meetings and I assure you I never heard anyone denigrate the work done at McLean Hospital. What I heard and my understanding of what MS Kochmann said and then wrote, is that they not only do good work but it is necessary work. And it is safe. And it is what our children need. Our children from Lincoln need this. These are youngsters suffering from anxiety and depression and as you pointed out, if they are a danger to anyone, it is to themselves.
And as you also wrote, they “will be administered intensive “dialectical behavior therapy” as well as “psycho-pharmaceutical treatment.”’ I assure you Mr. Gregory, a good number of kids in our town receive psycho-pharmaceutical treatment and our high school teaches dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). These are all good things.
I remain flummoxed at the outrage.
Mr. Gregory’s letter is a model of civil discourse so needed in this country yet so lacking. It is respectful and factual. He does Lincoln proud and I would hope it characterizes the Lincoln community at large.