Print This Post

The NIMBY Report

Columbus, Ohio

by Debra Stein

When people talk about “NIMBYs” (Not In My Backyard) or “LULUs” (Locally Unwanted Land Uses), homeless facilities and affordable housing developments always rank high on the list of projects that citizens do not want in their own neighborhoods. Fortunately, the findings from a public opinion poll conducted in the Columbus metropolitan area offer community outreach strategies to the builders and homeless service providers of controversial projects.

In the fall of 1999, the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio (COHHIO) commissioned a telephone survey of 500 randomly selected voters in the area around Columbus. Though the survey focused on community beliefs about homeless facilities, its findings are also relevant to those who wish to overcome community resistance to other forms of affordable housing.

The results offer strategic guidance for future affordable housing proposals:

1. Citizens Favor the General Idea of Building New Homeless Facilities “In the Area.” Two-thirds (65%) of respondents supported the concept of building housing for homeless people in the Columbus region. Moreover, neighbors strongly believe that even “wealthy and suburban neighborhoods should get their fair share” of housing for the homeless (70%). Even in the suburbs, supporters of homeless housing outnumber opponents nearly two to one.
2. Fewer Citizens Support Building Homeless Housing in Their Own Neighborhood. 55% of voters say they would favor a hypothetical proposal to build housing for the homeless “somewhere” in the community. The survey data supports a phased approach – 83% of folks who initially expressed support for new homeless housing in the general region were likely to then endorse a project in their own backyards.
3. Supporters of Housing for the Homeless Include Citizens Who Have Personally Interacted with Homeless People in the Past, and Younger Residents. Groups often considered economically marginalized strongly favor construction of new homeless facilities. These groups include: low-income voters (71%), renters (69%), and African American residents (69%). Among those most supportive of new housing are those who have had a homeless family member, have themselves been personally homeless in the past (68%), or are downtown area residents (69%). Adults under the age of 34 (66%) and women under the age of 45 (65%) are also more likely to favor supportive housing for homeless.
4. Compromises That Reduce the Number of Beds Won’t Significantly Increase Support, but Permit Enforcement, a Strong Track Record, and Good Design Will. Only 52 percent of citizens say that reducing the number of homeless occupants from 50 residents to 25 residents would make them more likely to favor a homeless facility in their own neighborhood. Three-quarters of respondents are more likely to endorse the project if “the housing was run by an organization with a track record of running safe, clean programs,” or “the housing operator could have its permits revoked unless it lived up to a written “Good Neighbor Plan” that controls how it must operate.” A good design and credible maintenance program are also valuable concessions: 86% of citizens believe “supportive housing for the homeless can fit into a neighborhood if it is well designed and maintained.”
5. Be Prepared to Respond to Concerns about the Impact of Homeless Facilities on Property Values. The impact of low-income housing on the value of their property is an important concern to many neighbors. Good rebuttal arguments include the quality of design and maintenance, and the risk of permit revocation if a homeless facility breaches its “Good Neighbor” commitments.
6. Recruit Project Spokespersons and Endorsers from Inside and Outside the Neighborhood. When it comes to deciding whether a proposed homeless project will cause problems in the neighborhood, citizens are most likely to listen to homeowners who live near an existing homeless facility in another neighborhood (72% believable), a priest, rabbi, or minister (68%), a police officer (66%), or the United Way (63%).

Debra Stein is the president of the San Francisco-based public affairs firm, GCA Strategies. She is the author of several books on NIMBYism and her firm specializes in controversial land use projects across the nation. For more information, e-mail Stein, call her at 415-391-4100 or visit the GCA Strategies Web site at www.gcastrategies.com.