One Year Later: Dickson is Still Waiting for Recovery Home Reform

Dickson, TN — At a recent public meeting held by the Chamber of Commerce, City of Dickson Mayor Don L. Weiss Jr. once again addressed the issue that has defined much of Dickson’s civic debate over the past year: the rapid growth of recovery residences in residential neighborhoods.

At the Chamber event Weiss reiterated what he told residents back in February 2025 — that the city’s authority is sharply limited by federal and state law. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, individuals in recovery are protected under disability law. Tennessee statute further classifies homes housing up to eight residents (plus staff) as single-family residences.

In short, cities cannot zone them out.

“We have to operate within the law,” Weiss explained. “If there’s going to be real change, it has to happen at the state level.”

That message echoes the one delivered at a packed town hall one year ago.

February 18, 2025: The Breaking Point

On February 18, 2025, residents filled Dickson City Hall, many standing along the walls for a two-hour public forum on recovery homes.

They described overcrowded houses, daily foot traffic through subdivisions, suspected drug activity, ambulance calls, and fear for children walking home from school.

The stories were emotional. Some residents defended recovery programs. Others demanded oversight and accountability.

City officials were sympathetic — but clear.

Local government, they said, cannot regulate these homes under current federal and state law. Any meaningful reform would require action in Nashville.

And that is where the strategy became politically interesting.

All Eyes on the State Legislature

After the town hall, Dickson city leaders turned almost exclusively to one person for help at the state level: Mary Littleton.

Littleton represents part of Dickson County. City officials met with her, provided documentation from the town hall, and publicly placed their hopes in her ability to deliver reform.

What makes that decision noteworthy is this: Dickson County has two state representatives.

The other is Jody Barrett.

Barrett represents a significant portion of Dickson County, yet he was largely absent from the public conversation surrounding recovery home reform. City leaders did not visibly engage him as a co-leader on the issue. They did not publicly press both offices for joint sponsorship or unified advocacy.

Instead, the effort centered almost entirely on Littleton.

Why?

That question has lingered in political circles for months.

What Was Delivered?

Rep. Littleton ultimately sponsored HB1351 / SB1240, which created a voluntary certification program for recovery residences seeking court referrals or state funding.

Supporters argue it was a first step toward accountability. Critics argue it lacked enforcement power and did not grant cities new zoning authority. Homes that do not participate in the certification program face no penalties beyond ineligibility for state referrals.

Meanwhile, a separate bill created a local regulation pilot program for Hamilton County — but Dickson County was not included.

For residents who packed the February 2025 town hall demanding action, the legislative outcome felt underwhealming.

A Strategic Gamble

By placing nearly all of their faith in one state representative — particularly one who is at the end of her career — Dickson city leaders made a calculated political gamble.

Perhaps they believed seniority, committee relationships, or caucus standing made Littleton the strongest vehicle for reform. Or Perhaps they believed unity behind one sponsor would be more effective.

What remains clear is this: The strategy did not produce the sweeping authority many residents expected. And it did not expand local control in Dickson the way Hamilton County received under its pilot program.

One Year Later

Mayor Weiss’ recent remarks make one thing clear: the issue is not going away.

The city remains bound by the same federal and state laws it cited in February 2025. The neighborhoods remain divided. Recovery operators remain active. And residents remain frustrated.

But the political landscape is about to change.

With Mary Littleton retiring at the end of this term, Dickson will soon have new representation in Nashville. That transition creates both uncertainty and opportunity.

A new legislator could choose to build a broader coalition. They could pursue stronger enforcement mechanisms. They could push for Dickson to be included in any future pilot programs. Or they could allow the issue to quietly fade.

For now, the reality is this: it’s been a year since the town hall and the problem remains unresolved.

And as Dickson heads into the 2026 election cycle, voters will not just be choosing a new state representative.

They will be choosing whether — or not — this fight for reform continues.