|
<br />documentation to justify this conclusion. With-
<br />outany data to support the conclusions, the
<br />resolution impacted the social service agen-
<br />cies located in or providing services in the OTR
<br />neighborhood by denying equal protection of
<br />the law as guaranteed by the u.s. Constitution,
<br />and holding some organizations to a different
<br />standard than other agencies performing simi-
<br />lar services in other neighborhoods without
<br />any justification for that different treatment.
<br />Staff established the Cincinnati Social
<br />Service Committee (SSe) when the planning
<br />commission directed staff to create zoning
<br />text amendments with input from the social
<br />service providers and neighborh'ood represen-
<br />tatives. A total of 28 meetings were held with
<br />the goal of developing zoning text amend-
<br />ments that would address the definitions,
<br />location, and concentration of social service
<br />agencies in the city. The SSC consisted of a
<br />broad representation of social service provid-
<br />ers and concerned citizens who worked to
<br />provide meaningful feedback to city officials.
<br />The regulation of social service facilities,
<br />is a complex issue that requires an under-
<br />standing of some of the Causes of poverty
<br />,!nd homelessness, as well as the legal issues
<br />associated with regulat.ions that affect reli-
<br />gious establishments and protected classes
<br />of individuals. The identification and defini-
<br />tion of "controversial social service facilities"
<br />"is an essential component in understanding
<br />this issue and assessing the need for regula-
<br />tions for these uses. Over 3,000 non profits
<br />were identified in Greater Cincinnati and its
<br />adjacent counties. The SSC neighborhood
<br />representatives were concerned with those
<br />social service uses whose clients might dis-
<br />play negative behaviors or activities in close
<br />proximity to residential areas. In the end, the
<br />discussions focused mostly on ho'meiess
<br />shelterS,.integrated social service campuses,
<br />soup kitchens, and certain types of sup-
<br />portive housing such as ''wet houses" orthe
<br />Housing First Model. ,
<br />The Housing First Model of supportive
<br />housing has gained mom!,!ntum in recent
<br />years as a viable alternative to the standard
<br />care for persons who are homeless with seri-
<br />ous mental illness or alcohol and substance
<br />addictions. Housing First offers immediate,
<br />permanent housing without requiring treat-
<br />ment compliance or abstinence. Unlike
<br />traditional standard programs, which require
<br />"treatment first" or detoxification and so-
<br />briety before independent housing will be
<br />provided, Housing First programs separate
<br />housing from treatment, considering treat-
<br />ment as being voluntary and housing being a
<br />fundamental need and human right.
<br />
<br />80
<br />
<br />Best practice trends also point to col-
<br />laborationof certain agencies and services
<br />by sharing a common physical location.
<br />Many successful examples exist through-
<br />out the United States. The Haven for Hope
<br />campus centralizes a multitude of services
<br />for the homeless including an Boo-bed
<br />emergency shelter 1.5 miles west of down-
<br />town on a 22-acre site in San Antonio, Texas.
<br />The purp(jse of this faCility is to provide a
<br />comprehensive process from beginningto '
<br />end that allows forthe transformation of a
<br />person coming off the streets. It includes
<br />Prospects Courtyard, a covered open area
<br />for the chronically homeless who are not yet
<br />comfortable entering a building.
<br />
<br />
<br />, Traditional theories indicate thatsocial
<br />service facilities should maximize access
<br />for their clients while minimizing the cost of
<br />services. Accordingly, many social service
<br />providers have concentrated in struggling
<br />lower income neighborhoodswhere'there is
<br />low-cost rent, affordable real estate, and little
<br />opposition from property owners. The social
<br />service representatives on the SSC felt that
<br />sod,al serVice~did not have a direct correla-
<br />tion to negative community impacts; on the
<br />contrary, available research highlighted the
<br />positive impact of social service facilities on
<br />adjacent communities, such as an increase in
<br />property values and decrease in crime.
<br />Residents, on the, other hand, expressed
<br />concems over the "negative" impacts of sociill
<br />service agencies on the host neighborhoods.
<br />Many ofthe identified impacts were related
<br />to drug abuse and mental illness, which are
<br />more consistent with the services provided for
<br />the homeless, although not necessarily across
<br />the board. The resident representatives ident;-
<br />
<br />fied the following impacts; public intoxication;
<br />viiolencej profanity; panhandling; solicitation;
<br />proliferation of litter; evidence of public urina-
<br />tion; large numbers of individuals loitering;
<br />open containers of alcohol; suspicious behav-
<br />ior/drug usage or sales; erratic behaviors by
<br />dients; quality of life-increased crime and
<br />high frequency of Part 1and Part 2* crimes (see
<br />note at end ofthis article for a discussion of
<br />these crimes); safety; frequent police and other
<br />emergency calls, diverting limited emergency
<br />response resources from the balance of the
<br />community; poorly maintained properties;
<br />negative perception of certain neighborhoods;
<br />loss of I)eighborhood desirability based on per-
<br />ception; potential decrease in property values;
<br />disincentive to business investment; deterrent
<br />, to owner occupancy (flight); regional magnet
<br />effect for "outsiders" and the homeless.
<br />Of this list, the loss of property value
<br />, due to the concentration of social service
<br />agencies was of primary concern. However,
<br />few studies substantiate this claim. Many
<br />studies show that affordable housing and
<br />group homes do not have a negative effect on
<br />property values. Some studies even show that
<br />property values increase.
<br />In conjunction with the work of the SSC,
<br />staff of the Department of City Planning and
<br />Buildings used other strategies in an attempt
<br />to determine "controversial" uses and to
<br />document their impacts. Surveys were sent
<br />to real e?tate appraisers to determine if any
<br />inferences could be made about the effect of
<br />social service fuciiities on propertY values:
<br />Siite assessments of social service fucilities
<br />were carried out to identify observable im-
<br />pacts on neighborhoods. Finally, crime data
<br />from the CinCinnati Police Department was
<br />obtained on the calls for service (CFS) and
<br />arrests in each of the five police districts.
<br />Ten staff members from various'city
<br />departments and the Police Department
<br />completed a total of 403 site assessments on
<br />7Lf social service facilities. "Unsafe neighbor-
<br />hood," "loitering," "intimidating suspects,"
<br />"maintenance," and "areas of concealment"
<br />were identified most often. However, two shel-
<br />ters had reports of violence, public urination,
<br />littering, suspicious behavior, and drug sales
<br />or use, drug paraphernalia on-site, prostitu-
<br />tion, open containers, and public intoxication.
<br />Local police also provided crime statis-
<br />tics on the 74 fucilities and on CFS for three
<br />years for each dty block that contained one
<br />ofthese facilities. In addition, the police sup-
<br />plied information on arrests for Part 1 and Part
<br />2 crimes in each ofthe police service districts. '
<br />The site assessments along with the Po-
<br />lice Department data revealed that one large
<br />
<br />ZONINGPRACTlCE 1.10
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 4
<br />
|