Wellesley residents came out in force at Monday’s two-and-a-half-hour Board of Selectmen’s meeting, which was devoted to discussion of the Coleman Institute opioid and alcohol treatment center that’s readying to treat patients at a Lower Falls office building by year-end. It presented residents with their first opportunity to hear directly from the healthcare organization and for the organization to hear straight from residents about their concerns regarding the outpatient facility slated to open at 30 Washington St., nearby several schools as well as Warren Park.
While company officials heard from supporters, and were assured numerous times by residents that Wellesley is open to having a treatment facility, they mostly got an earful from parents concerned that the office is located so close to where their kids go to school and play. Parents expressed concern that addicts being treated, and those turned away, could be a threat to their kids. Parents also criticized Coleman for not engaging sooner with the community about its plans, and asked the Board of Selectmen pointed questions about why it wasn’t taking steps to at least delay the office’s opening until the community can further explore the issue.
Our report in September that the Coleman Institute would be opening caught town officials by surprise and resulted in parents organizing a meeting to hash out their concerns in anticipation of Monday’s Board of Selectmen meeting. The Board announced in late September that it would be inviting Coleman reps to attend its Oct. 22 meeting.
More than 100 people, some standing, jammed into Great Hall. Three reps from BayMark Health and its Coleman Institute business — including founder Dr. Peter Coleman — answered questions (through the Board of Selectmen) from more than 2 dozen citizens. The majority of those who spoke identified themselves as parents of children who attend St. John School and/or Schofield Elementary School, both situated near Coleman’s planned office. (You can watch a Wellesley Public Media recording of the meeting below.)
Doctors and other healthcare professionals were among residents and former residents who spoke. They all empathized with the need to treat addicts, though differed on whether the current location is appropriate.
Dr. Patricia Helm, a pediatrician and Wellesley resident with a child at St. John, described herself as an advocate for all children, including those affected by the opioid crisis. “My concern lies only with the specific location that the Coleman Institute has selected. There is no community that is untouched by this epidemic. This disease is in Wellesley. The question is: Where is the safest location in town?”
She expressed concern about patients leaving the treatment center while sedated and in the care of untrained family members or friends. Dr. Helm’s remarks fired up the crowd, which broke into applause and was soon after reminded that such outbursts wouldn’t be tolerated by the Board out of concern that other speakers could be intimidated.
While the reps addressed most questions raised throughout the night, the big one left unanswered was whether the business might consider relocating. Selectwoman Beth Sullivan Woods emphasized that this meeting for was sharing information, not business negotiations.
However, Dr. Coleman acknowledged at the end of the session that he heard residents’ concerns loud and clear (it would have been impossible not to) and said his team will discuss how to address them. The Board says residents should sign up for its news announcements to keep posted.
BayMark/Coleman has its say
The information forum began with a brief presentation by the BayMark and Coleman reps, whose organization has been around for about 20 years and has more than a dozen Coleman Institutes across the country. They stressed that they are not a methadone clinic weening people off of really bad drugs via less bad, but still addictive, substitutes. Rather, they use a nonaddictive opioid-blocking drug called Naltrexone that’s disseminated in “microdoses” via an implant designed to put people on the road to recovery in a matter of 3-8 days (treatment is followed by months of case management/counseling).
They touted a 98% success rate for getting withdrawal treatment patients to embrace Naltrexone (though it was the other 2% that some residents wondered about, and how those people might impact the surrounding area).
Why Wellesley?
“We wanted a suburban Boston location that’s safe, progressive, open-minded,” said Andrew Blake, BayMark COO. He said patients are seeking an “upscale, discreet environment” like this and that the business looks forward to being good neighbors (parents latched onto that word “discreet” later on to question whether 30 Washington St. is really so tucked away given the busyness of that business district and school zone).
In answering questions throughout the night, the organization’s reps stressed the normalcy of the operation, including its planned 8:30am-5pm hours, and limitation to just 4 treatment rooms. Dr. Coleman at one point during the night said he wished people in the room could go hang out in the parking lot or lobby of another facility and see just how nonthreatening of a situation this will really be. “We don’t intend to set up halfway houses for people to live in Wellesley,” he said.
Citizens have at it
Once the BayMark/Coleman reps were done with their opening remarks, residents had their say.
The first five speakers all raised concerns regarding the location, the transparency of the organization’s entry to town, or what sort of approval process was needed to set up the business. One resident asked why a committee of stakeholders (including residents, hospitals, police) couldn’t be formed to explore other possible locations in town.
Another cited concern over the unpredictability of patients who are in a “fragile state” and volunteered to donate her time to help Coleman explore other possible locations. She said the town sends a mixed message by being so vigilant about requiring people eating out to order food if they want to drink even one glass of wine, yet allowing a detox facility to locate near schools for young kids.
Others wanted answers about the process used to screen patients and their support people. As things got more intense toward the end of the night, one attendee warned that protesters would show up with signs outside the office if plans don’t change.
A lawyer representing a group of concerned parents urged BayMark/Coleman “to take a pause, take a step back, engage with the community” to find another location that would work out better for the business and town in the long run. He encouraged the organization to take the sort of community engagement approach that federal guidelines suggest opioid treatment programs (OTP) like methadone clinics take (operations like Coleman’s are not categorized as OTPs).
Citizens spoke out directly in support of the treatment facility, too.
One parent said she was “really saddened by the close mindedness” of some of what she was hearing, and saw the arrival of the Coleman Institute as an opportunity for the town to be progressive thinkers.
A former resident, who described herself as a nurse practitioner who works in the addiction field and has two grown children in town who have 8 kids between them, surveyed the crowd by show of hands to see how many in the room have people in their life that they know suffer from addiction. At least a third of the people raised their hands. She urged residents not to act “as though junkies are going to be preying on their children. This is not the case…These are human beings. These are our family… people do get well. You have to give them a chance.”
Longtime resident Andy Langowitz said he thinks the location of the Coleman Institute seems reasonable for such a medical practice and that he would be proud to have it in town. It sure beats the couch that his nephew detoxed on a few years back for lack of a nearby treatment facility. “For those of you who have young children in the area I appreciate your fears,” he said. “But think for a moment that those young children will grow up and some of them may need detox, and you may wish that you had allowed a detox facility to be nearby.”
Separately, a recovering addict who works with substance users spoke up to say that new treatment methods should be encouraged, and that he was excited to hear about Coleman’s approach. “The ones seeking treatment are not the ones to be worried about,” he said.
Answering questions
The Board took small bunches of questions at a time, then dished them to the BayMark/Coleman reps, town counsel Tom Harrington, themselves or the police.
Chief Jack Pilecki said the department reached out to police in 10 other communities where Coleman has similar facilities and reported that no incidents had been reported. Responding to another question about what it’s like for the police to deal with heroin users, Pilecki said those individuals usually have overdosed and need to be treated with Narcan and sent to the hospital. It’s people who drink too much that cause the cops a lot more grief, he said.
Attorney Harrington said the town needed to treat this business as it would any other that is allowed to set up shop according to town bylaws and zoning rules. If residents want to try to change a bylaw then they’d have to go through the usual process of getting an article on a warrant, getting it approved at Town Meeting, and so forth.
(What I took away from that is that the timing of this process wouldn’t work in light of Coleman’s plans to open soon.)
But at least a dialogue has begun. We’ll see whether Dr. Coleman and his team will respond to residents’ concerns in a way that will satisfy those opposed to their current plans.
As a fellow SJS parent, I have listened to everyone having all views with acceptance , an open mind, and tolerance. While I understand the fears that many SJS parents have about the location of this facility and initially had them myself, the information I received from the Coleman Institute eased my mind.
Coleman is not prescribing or distributing dangerous opioid drugs. CVS is not filling addictive, opioid drugs. This is not an inpatient facility accepting insurance and medicaid that will be filled with junkies. This is a high end private facility for only the affluent who have found themselves in trouble. The notion of drug dealers lurking near school grounds is extremely unlikely. The notion of sedated or drugged patients driving and hurting children on the playground or sidewalks is extremely unlikely. Every patient coming for treatment must have a sober adult with them to monitor them and to drive. As someone else said above, drunk driving and texting while driving are far more dangerous, and the odds of your child being harmed or killed by a drunk or phone distracted driver are much much higher.
As Christians and Catholics, I urge everyone to practice compassion and show support for those in our community that are afflicted and suffering.
Is anyone organizing the protest? I’m in
I’m in too and know several others who will be!
If your comment below to me about putting the center near another school was not a NIMBY comment I’m really not sure what is. As I waited for my child at St. John rel. ed. class on Sunday I drove around 30 Washington. Not only is this office far back on a hill, it has three entry points. Albeit one is across from St. John but none of them are in a school zone and neither is the office. The school zone seems to start at Glen Rd and go to Columbia St. The River st. entrance is the closest to the 30 Washington bldg. and the one across from the NWH Surgical Day Center makes me wonder why you are not questioning drivers who could be sedated fbeing released in the public?
Are you aware of how many psychiatrists offices are directly across from St John’s in 42 Washington? They deal with patients in a fragile state on a daily basis.
As for the picketing, are you really going to make someone feel embarrassed or scared to get treatment? Hopefully the Townsmen will show up to take pictures but in the meantime maybe we all need a little reminder of the St. John school mission statement:
Built on the cornerstones of Academic Excellence, Faith Development, and Community, the mission of Saint John School is to provide each student with an education that promotes the development of the whole person within an atmosphere of Christian concern, commitment, and dedication to service. The school helps each student grow intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and physically in the Catholic tradition. In keeping with the ideals of its patron saint, Saint Julie Billiart, the school values joy, respect, and kindness.
The driveway to the institute from Washington (the main one, wasn’t aware of the others, if there in fact are any) is definitely IN a SCHOOL ZONE. It is directly across the street! The patients will be going directly by the school and the children outside playing in the playground and parking lot, where they often have physical education. Not to mention the enormous foot traffic of small children all around lower falls!
We would absolutely protest, not to embarrass the individuals seeking treatment, but to embarrass the owners of the company, building and leasing agent who foolishly chose to select this location and put our children at risk.
I really hope you reconsider. Please take some time to let your anger subside so you can come come up with the most productive way to accomplish your mission without alienating people who need help.
The comment on the River Street entrance is incorrect. There is a gate between the access driveways, and therefore, the only egress option is via Washington Street.
This center concerns me as I come fresh off reading “Dreamland” by Sam Quinones, a documentary chronicling opiate use in America from the 19th century to present day. The author specifically and painstakingly spent years interviewing addicts, local law enforcement, dealers (specifically the black tar heroin Xalisco cells who currently dominate the U.S. market in sales as they offer drive up delivery, nixing the antiquated “street corner sales” approach), the DEA, FBI amd incacerated drug czars. The overwhelming theme to consider here as we talk about a clinic opening up in Wellesley is that HEROIN DEALERS SPECIFICALLY TARGET treatment clinics as that is a bona fide market for new clientele (those who relapse). In fact, the book highlights time and time again over the span of 20 yrs how these cells penetrate new towns pushing their dope…they follow the treatment centers. So my question to local law enforcement is…how is this town’s lolice force equipped to deal with this prospective reality? Further, the author cites treatment facility doctors and professionals stating the now well known statistics in the appropriate treatment timelines…Researchers and medical and social professionalst nlw know it takes a minimum of 30-90 days to clear the dope out of the body, with another two years of intense multi disciplinary support for successful treatment. My question here then is for the medical professionals…how can you prove to Wellesley’s residents that you do in fact have the resources and procedures in place to accomodate said support network for successful treatment? These are my two questions to the discussion.
our associations from reading Dreamland are incorrect. Recoverymattersma.org is open to coming to Wellelsley FREE of charge to moderate a community meeting on the ins and outs of drug addiction. We are nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists and people in recovery. Please educate yourself and once again i remind you that anyone coming to Coleman is paying $8000.00 up front not the targets of the Mexican cartels as more than likely this clientele is able to get high grade pharmaceuticals or heroin not from the dealers on Methadone Mile. Education is what is needed and it is available FREE of charge.
brianne
People are ignorant that’s one thing this article shows!
I was at the meeting…I thought the article was an accurate depiction of the tone of the discussion, and relayed the very real concerns people had strictly about the location of the facility in a school zone. Several of the people that chose to speak in support of the facility attempted to change the narrative and argue that there was opposition to the facility in general which was not what i was hearing. I think to get on a message board and hurl insults at parents who have legitimate concerns about an opiod detox center opening in an elementary school zone is extremely insulting and not at all constructive.
I completely agree with Ryan’s comment. I was also in attendance and felt the overwhelming message from residents/parents was about the location choice. This was stated over and over.
This is not a NIMBY issue! The Town will continue to be welcoming to all, let’s find a way to coexist and use commonsense.
The problem with your request to Coleman to find a different location is that this is a town with many young families and kids. There are numerous schools, daycares and preschools in this town. No matter where it goes it will be near families and children. Would you be so concerned if it was on the other end of town? This is why many of those who spoke came off as saying not in my backyard. As mentioned in another post other practices in town are already using this treatment. It was clear Dr. Coleman has never seen this type of opposition and I too am disheartened that my fellow St. John parishioners were so harsh. We are better than this and our children will be fine.
This location is actually in a SCHOOL ZONE. You can see the playground and have to drive through the school zone to get in and out of the facility. That is very different than if it ended up “near” another school. The fact that this is even legal is quite scary and Wellesley needs to stand together and stop it from happening…and by the way, they have clear plans to grow into a much larger facility. The entire town WILL be effected.
I agree with Lisa M. While a location on Walnut where the other clinics and less foot traffic may have been better, there are not many options in Wellesley that residents wouldn’t complain about due to there being a school in the vicinity of, well, every place. Finding space for a business is a challenge and I am guessing they’ve never had an issue like this before. I wish people would change their attitude about this and view it as an opportunity to have a teachable moment. Teaching children how to be aware, what to look for and what to do in certain situations is an important life skill. Our ‘bubble’ does not prepare kids for reality. This clinic is like a regular doctors clinic and I don’t foresee children seeing anything out of the ordinary. But if mine did? We would have an awesome conversation and I hope they would be scared straight from ever touching that stuff. On another note, I find people who text and drive far more dangerous to our citizens than anyone trying to get clean at an expensive detox center. I sure hope you don’t text and drive.
I spoke as the nurse practitioner who brought her children up in town and who has 8 grandchildren living in Welllesley. More than 1/3 of the audience raised their hand when asked if there was someone in their life with addiction. What are you trying to protect your children from i would like to ask? As you are well aware there are a number of docs/NP’s who prescribe buprenorphine right in town, and this medication as many more problems w diversion, and driving under the influence. i had to laugh at the out rage expressed over the fact this this clinic is for profit. Seriously Wellesley? Lastly the Coleman clinic caters to folks just like you. One needs to pay 8k UP-FRoNT for the treatment and there is no refund. I am particularly embarrassed that St John’s, once my parish could be so angry at the idea of sick people being served care and treatment. Recoverymattersma.org is happy to come to town and do some first rate education to those concerned with drug and alcohol addiction
There was a nurse practitioner and a doctor who spoke in support of the center immediately before and after the gentleman who brought up his nephew having to detox at home.
While many doctors who spoke at were certainly against the center and its location, the line in the 4th paragraph of this article
“Doctors and other healthcare professionals were among those parents who spoke, and while they empathized with the need to treat addicts they also urged BayMark/Coleman to relocate.”
gives the false and misleading perception that all healthcare professionals were against the clinic and its location.
As this was not the case, the Swellesley Report should correct this article to avoid giving an inaccurate account to to town members who did not attend the meeting.
Kev, thanks for your comment, this is true. We’ve reworded the article to reflect this.