A contentious debate has erupted in Victor Valley as plans for a major addiction treatment center have pitted community health needs against the safety and security of thousands of students, sparking a formal opposition from the local school district. The Victor Valley Union High School District has taken a firm stand against a $60 million San Bernardino County proposal to build an expansive behavioral health facility directly adjacent to three of its campuses. District officials are stressing that their objection is not against the vital services the center would provide but is aimed squarely at its proposed location, which they argue poses an unacceptable risk to the student population. This conflict highlights a growing challenge for communities: balancing the urgent need for accessible addiction and mental health services with the foundational priority of maintaining a safe and undisrupted educational environment for children. The school district’s board has now formally entered the fray, signaling a protracted negotiation over the future of the 29-acre plot of land.
The Heart of the Conflict
The dispute centers on the county’s ambitious plan and the school district’s unequivocal response, setting the stage for a critical dialogue about land use, public safety, and community planning. At the core of the issue are differing perspectives on what constitutes a suitable location for such a comprehensive and large-scale facility.
A Project of Scale and Proximity
San Bernardino County’s proposal involves a significant expansion of an existing behavioral health and substance-use treatment center, transforming it into a major regional hub for addiction services. The $60 million project aims to triple the facility’s capacity to over 200 beds, establishing a comprehensive campus designed to address a wide spectrum of needs. The proposed center, located on a 29-acre parcel on Cobalt Road, would offer a robust array of services, including a gated residential program for long-term care, outpatient clinics for ongoing support, advanced psychiatric services, and a dedicated withdrawal management or detox facility. However, the plan’s most contentious aspect is its geography. The expansion would push the facility’s boundaries to within a few hundred feet of three major schools: Silverado High School, Larrea Middle School, and the Cobalt Institute of Math & Science. These three campuses collectively serve a student body of more than 4,000, placing a large and vulnerable population in immediate proximity to a center managing complex and often acute behavioral health crises.
An Unanimous Stand on Student Safety
In response to the county’s plan, the Victor Valley Union High School District’s Board of Trustees has presented a united front, driven by what they describe as their non-negotiable duty to protect students. The board voted unanimously to adopt a formal resolution opposing the proposed location, a move that legally solidifies their position and sends a clear message to county officials. Board President Rosalio Hinojos articulated the board’s stance, stating that ensuring the safety and security of students and staff is their paramount responsibility, and the proximity of the proposed facility introduces an unacceptable level of risk. This sentiment has been echoed by school administrators, teachers, and a growing number of concerned parents. It is crucial to note that the district’s opposition is narrowly focused; officials have repeatedly clarified they are not against the existence of an addiction treatment center and acknowledge the profound need for such services within the community. Their argument is centered exclusively on the principle that a facility of this nature, regardless of its merits, is fundamentally incompatible with a location directly adjacent to school grounds.
Deeper Concerns and a Call for Dialogue
Beyond the overarching issue of location, the school district’s opposition is rooted in specific operational fears and a sense of procedural injustice, citing a significant lack of communication from the county. These factors have compounded the community’s anxiety and fueled a demand for greater transparency and collaboration.
Operational Fears and Educational Disruptions
The abstract concerns over safety have been translated into concrete, operational anxieties by school administrators who would be on the front lines of any potential incident. Larrea Middle School Principal Joe Williams highlighted a particularly troubling scenario, expressing fear that a security lockdown at the treatment center would inevitably force the adjacent schools into a simultaneous lockdown to ensure student safety. Such an event would cause massive educational disruptions, halting instruction and creating a climate of fear and uncertainty among students and staff. The logistical chaos of managing a lockdown across three campuses, with over 4,000 students, is a daunting prospect. This potential for recurring disruptions threatens the stability of the learning environment, raising concerns about the long-term psychological impact on children who would be educated in the shadow of a facility designed to handle crisis situations. The district argues that the constant potential for such security alerts would fundamentally alter the character of the school day and compromise the sense of safety that is essential for effective learning and development.
A Failure to Communicate
A significant undercurrent of the district’s opposition is the profound frustration over a perceived lack of communication and community engagement from San Bernardino County during the site selection process. Superintendent Carl Coles and various board members have pointed out that the district and the wider community were not adequately consulted before the location was chosen, leaving stakeholders feeling blindsided by the proposal. This lack of transparency fostered an environment of misinformation, with many local residents mistakenly believing the 29-acre property was zoned and intended for the development of residential housing. When the true nature of the project was revealed, it was met with shock and a sense of betrayal, fueling the belief that the decision was made without due consideration for its impact on the schools. This procedural failure has eroded trust between the community and county officials, complicating efforts to find a mutually agreeable solution. The district contends that a more inclusive and transparent process would have identified these concerns much earlier and could have avoided the current standoff.
A Path Toward Resolution
In an effort to move past the initial conflict, the school district proposed a joint town hall meeting to create a platform for meaningful dialogue between county officials, school representatives, and the concerned public. This initiative was designed to replace the perceived top-down decision-making with a collaborative process, allowing community members to voice their concerns directly and for the county to explain the project’s rationale and potential safeguards. In a promising development, San Bernardino County Assistant Executive Officer Diane Rundles responded to the outreach, acknowledging the clear and urgent need for the proposed addiction treatment services while also expressing a willingness to work with the district and community to address their deep-seated concerns. This exchange marked a pivotal turn, shifting the dynamic from one of pure opposition to one of potential negotiation. The ensuing discussions were framed as the first essential step toward finding a resolution that could honor the county’s public health objectives without compromising the safety and integrity of the educational environment.
