MAILBAG:

I read the letter from Cindy Olsen published in the Forum (“Walk in rehab patrons’ shoes to fully understand needs,” Dec. 18).

While Olsen is to be congratulated on her nine years of sobriety, she has unfortunately entirely missed the point of those opposed to the current rehab facility dispute.

She reveals her lack of understanding by characterizing those opposed to the current situation as arrogant and ignorant.

I have never heard any of those opposed to the current situation suggest there should be no rehab facilities in Newport Beach. In fact, such facilities existed in reasonable numbers for years in Newport Beach without issue.

The point of the current dispute is not whether rehab facilities serve a purpose or should exist at all with the city — it is the obscene number of rehab facilities that exist particularly in the peninsula area (and currently spreading to other areas).

Olsen seems to forget, as constitutional advocates of freedoms often do, that freedom is a two-way street. The residents in the community are no less “free” to assert their views with respect to the number and proximity of rehab facilities than the rehab operators are “free” to conduct their business within the parameters permitted by the law (which also seems to be a current problem).

Olsen’s analogy to the “Lord of the Flies” and suggestion that disapproval returns us to savagery is just plain silly.

Olsen’s attempt to drag those men and women who served in our military into this argument is disgraceful, as is her attempt to compare rehab home operators to philanthropists and physicians who treat cancer.

This argument has nothing to do with “freedom.” It is an argument over the degree to which business operators should be permitted to conduct business in a residential neighborhood as a greater level for greater profits. Make no mistake about it — Sober Living By The Sea, Morningside and others involved in their business are in it “for profit.” Even they would not dispute that fact.

Olsen finds it tragic that “Bill” the purported director of Sober Living By The Sea is afraid to reveal his identity. “Tragedy” is starving children in third world countries. “Bill” is operating a business that has inundated its neighbors with well in excess of 100 facilities in a relatively small residential area for the sole purpose of gaining profit. Now when his company’s business decisions and practices are challenged, he chooses to hide behind anonymity.

The remedies sought or suggested by opponents of the current rehab facility situation would not be necessary but for the simple greed of the operators, which have resulted in an unreasonable number of facilities.

Lastly, Olsen would call upon the readers of your paper to consider the creed of Alcoholics Anonymous and correctly references one part of that creed, which calls for one to have “the courage to change things that I can.” Here is a solution! The rehab facility operators could change the things they can by reducing the number of facilities and causing them to be spread apart a reasonable distance within residential neighborhoods. That is something they can change at only a proportional loss of profit. It is also a change that they have clearly indicated they are unwilling to make.

Olsen’s plea would be better directed at the operators of these facilities whose only issue is profit.

STEVEN E. BRIGGS

Newport Beach