Who decides what risk a community must bear for Lexington recovery center? | Opinion
As a Lexington resident, small business owner, Certified Financial Planner, and Lecturer in Finance at the University of Kentucky, I spend much of my time thinking about risk, incentives, and long term outcomes. As a fiduciary, I am required to act in the best interest of those I serve, carefully weighing both risk tolerance and risk capacity before making decisions that impact others. Those principles do not just apply to markets. They apply to decisions that shape our communities.
What we are seeing in the current debate is a disconnect between narrative and reality. That was on full display Monday afternoon, when the Board of Adjustment granted a conditional use permit for 319 Duke Road to the operators of Roaring Brook Recovery Center at the expense of hundreds of dissenting neighbors, parents, and community members.
There is a certain irony in watching individuals who routinely oppose short term rentals now cheer on BOA members who voted yes, many of whom are short term rental operators and real estate developers, while dismissing the concerns of the people who actually live in that community. The same voices that would rightly stand with residents in a lower income neighborhood are quick to disregard those same concerns here, largely because of a perception tied to ZIP code.
Reading through online commentary, the inconsistency is hard to ignore. Some of the same voices that oppose short term rentals on the grounds that they undermine affordable housing are now supporting a proposal that removes housing potential altogether. It suggests this debate is being driven less by principle and more by perception.
Many of those raising concerns are not caricatures of “wealthy elites,” but long time residents, including school teachers, government workers, and elderly couples who have lived in the neighborhood for decades. To reduce their concerns to NIMBYism is to ignore both their lived experience and their legitimate stake in the outcome.
Instead, we are being asked to accept a proposal that introduces meaningful risk with unclear mitigation.
In finance, one of the first lessons we teach is simple. There is no reward for bearing risk unnecessarily. Equally important is understanding the difference between risk tolerance and risk capacity. A community may be told to tolerate risk, but that does not mean it has the capacity to absorb the consequences if things go wrong.
This proposal reflects neither. It is, quite simply, an unnecessary risk. It also makes no real sense.
The site sits within close proximity of three schools. That fact alone should elevate the level of scrutiny required of any proposal. Yet during public discussions, the applicant struggled to clearly articulate basic operational details, including entrance and exit policies, building security, and enforcement mechanisms. At times, responses lacked confidence and relied on generalized or irrelevant studies rather than concrete, site specific plans. That should give everyone pause.
There is also a broader governance issue worth acknowledging. Three of the four Board of Adjustment members who voted in favor have professional ties to real estate, including development, short term rental operations, and commercial real estate law. That matters. In fact, one member’s professional profile explicitly states that he “assists real estate developers and expanding companies with land uses in Kentucky.”
As a fiduciary, I am held to a standard that requires me to act in the best interest of those I serve, setting aside personal incentives when making decisions that impact others. While BOA members are not fiduciaries in the legal sense, the spirit of that responsibility should still apply. When decision makers have professional ties to industries that may benefit from a particular outcome, it raises reasonable questions about alignment.
By the very nature of how they make their living, real estate professionals tend to have a higher tolerance for risk. That does not make them wrong. It does raise an important question. Why should their risk tolerance dictate outcomes for an entire neighborhood, particularly when those residents bear the downside?
I also find it troubling when someone who works in real estate, does not have children, and does not live in the neighborhood is tasked with making a decision that could impact the safety of schoolchildren nearby. Again, this is unnecessary risk.
These are not elected officials. They are appointed decision makers entrusted with weighing tradeoffs on behalf of the public. That responsibility demands consistency, transparency, and a heightened sensitivity to potential conflicts and incentives.
This is not a referendum on the importance of mental health services. Those services are critical, and Lexington should continue to support thoughtful, well executed solutions. But intent does not substitute for execution. Operator experience, planning rigor, and accountability matter, especially when the stakes involve children, schools, and established neighborhoods.
Community input should not be dismissed based on assumptions about who is speaking. Good policy requires consistency, weighing risks appropriately, and demanding clear, credible plans from those seeking approval.
Anything less is not progress. It is simply accepting risk without a commensurate return and asking others to bear the cost.
Jonathan Pliszka is the Principal of High Knoll Wealth Advisors and a Lecturer in Finance at the University of Kentucky. His children attend Christ the King School.