Stories circulate through the media about people who claim to need a "service animal" or "assistance animal" that paint the person as a scam artist who is trying to get around the rules.  It is somewhat like the broad public perception of the insanity defense as a means for criminals to fake their way out of going to jail.  There seems to be a natural inclination for people to feel that if they have to follow a rule, everybody should have to follow the same rule.  No exceptions.

But our disability discrimination laws recognize that some people do need to be treated differently so that they can receive the same services, benefits and opportunities as others.  This topic came up yesterday when Senate Bill 875 was heard by the Senate Consumer Protection and Pubic Affairs Committee.  The bill amends a law that presently allows landlords to charge a pet fee to blind and deaf tenants who have service animals.  Federal and state civil rights laws prohibit the charging of such a fee, and so the purpose of the bill is make the laws consistent.

At the hearing, legislators asked why these animals should be treated differently than pets.  The answer is that they are not pets.  They are an essential aid that allows a person with disabilities to function in the home and in society.  A service animal should be treated by a landlord like part of the tenant.  If the animal were to cause damage to the apartment, it would be like the tenant causing that harm.  General safety or cleaning deposits that are charged to all tenants can certainly be charged to a person with a service animal.  But the animal is not a luxury or an hobby.  It is essential to the life of the person with disabilities.

Legislators also asked about the difference between a service animal like a seeing eye dog, and an assistance animal such as a cat that provides comfort to an individual with mental illness.  There are many jokes circulating in the media about people who claim to need a "comfort ferret" or "companion horse" because of a disability.  The answer is that the law only requires "reasonable" accommodations and that if a person has a medically diagnosed disability and a clinically recognized need for a companion animal in order to remain in independent living, the law protects that need.  It should also be noted that not only the person with disabilities but society as a whole benefits when a person can remain living independently, outside of an expensive care facility.

Disability laws like the ADA and Fair Housing Act exist to allow people to share in the beneifts of society, not to let them shirk the rules.  And yes, Senate Bill 875 was passed by the committee. 

While looking over a list of proposed cuts to the state budget last week, I noticed that $6.5 million were slated to be removed from the Community Housing Trust Fund. That is half of the entire Fund.  This was not good.

Back in 1999, a Community Housing Trust Fund was set up by law.  The proceeds of the sale of Dammasch State Hospital property (minus sale costs) was directed to be placed into the Trust for investment.  Earnings of the account and no more that 5% of the principal were to be available to the state to use for community housing and institutional housing for people with mental illness.  Other moneys could be added to the Trust by the legislature or through other sources.  The proceeds amounted to about $13 million.

The statute that creates the Trust (ORS 426.506) specifically says that "At least 95 percent of the sale proceeds shall remain in the account in perpetuity."  It also says that "all moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the Department of Human Services to carry out” the purpose of the trust.

I alerted our partners on the Community Mental Health Coalition that we needed to take action.  We learned that the final decision about the Trust would be made this week.   NAMI Oregon sent an alert to its members and many organizations and individuals sent messages to Ways and Means Committee Members asking that the Trust Fund be held harmless. 

Today, we received official word that only $400,000 in unspent interest would be taken from the Trust.  While not protecting all of the money, this keeps the principal of the Trust intact.

In this budget environment,  we have achieved a great victory for the mental health community.  A key component to recovery is stable housing.  Without it, people are often rendered homeless and are at high risk to experience crisis and institutionalization.  We have preserved both the principal and the principles of community housing and trust in government.

Yay Advocates!