Altoona Reconsiders Recovery House Ordinance After Legal Concerns

City Council to discuss potential repeal and reintroduction of regulations following criticism from advocates.

Published on Feb. 10, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Altoona City Council is reconsidering a recently passed ordinance that tightens regulations on recovery houses, following concerns raised about potential legal challenges under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ordinance, which aims to address safety and quality of life issues, has drawn criticism from advocates who argue it could discriminate against individuals with substance use disorder.

Why it matters

The debate highlights the legal and ethical complexities surrounding housing for individuals in recovery, as the city tries to balance concerns about the impact of recovery homes on neighborhoods with the need to provide supportive housing options for those seeking recovery.

The details

The ordinance, adopted last month, prohibits the establishment of new recovery facilities within 1,500 feet of existing ones. Critics argue this restriction unduly limits housing options for individuals in recovery and may violate federal law, as people with substance use disorder are legally considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The council is also considering broader updates to regulations on halfway houses, rooming and boarding houses, and institutionalized housing.

  • The ordinance was adopted by the Altoona City Council in January 2026.
  • The council will discuss a potential repeal and reintroduction of the ordinance at an upcoming work session.

The players

Matt Pacifico

The mayor of Altoona, who indicated the council will discuss a potential repeal and reintroduction of the ordinance.

Autumn Temple

A resident who presented legal precedents to the council, highlighting four federal cases where distance requirements between group homes for people with disabilities were deemed discriminatory.

Marianne Sinisi

The head of Families United for Change, an advocacy organization for those afflicted with substance use disorder, who urged the council to revisit the ordinance.

Christopher McGuire

The city manager, who stated that some existing recovery facilities fall short of acceptable standards.

Dave Butterbaugh

A councilman who previously stated the council's intention to represent all residents, including those concerned about the impact of recovery homes on their quality of life.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We must not let individuals continue to damage private property in San Francisco.”

— Robert Jenkins, San Francisco resident (San Francisco Chronicle)

“Fifty years is such an accomplishment in San Francisco, especially with the way the city has changed over the years.”

— Gordon Edgar, grocery employee (Instagram)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.