Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. , . <br />home.less shelter generated more cails forpo- <br />lice service andth(:! highest number of arrests <br />for Part 2 crimes than any oth~r social service <br />facility in the dty. Furthermore, police statistics <br />for the period fronjJanuary 1, 2008,toAugust <br />12,2008, indicated therewere more than. <br />2,000 total arrests of individuals who gave an <br />OTR neighborhood address as their place of <br />residence. Morethan 1,200 of those arrests <br />were ofjridividuals who listed the homeless <br />shelter as theirplace of residence. Approxi- <br />mately two-thirds of these 1,200 arrestS oc- <br />curredwithin a hal~-mile radius ofthe shelter. <br /> <br />IDENTIFYlNji A CONCENTRATION OF SOCIAL <br />SERVICE FACILITIES <br />The concentratipn of services and facilities for <br />the- chronically homeless and the synergy of <br />problem behaviors can overwhelm the car- <br />rying capacity of a neighborhood. The term <br />concentration impliesthat at some point <br />the number of facilities will overwhelm the <br />permanent population. When that carrying <br />capacity is reached, the economic demo- <br />graphics begin to deteriorate and, ultimately, <br />a struggling community emerges. <br />In a 2002 report prepared for the <br />National Association of Realtors, George <br />C. Galster, a professor of Urban Affairs at <br />Wayne state University, stated that, "assisted <br />housing of various types had positive or <br />insignificant effects on residential property <br />values hearby in higher valued, less vulner- <br />able neighborhoods, unless it exceeded <br />thresholds of spatial concentration or facility <br />scale [and] evinced more modest prospects <br />for positive property value impacts in lower <br />value, more vulnerable neighborhoods, and <br />strength offrequently negative impacts waS. <br />directly related to the concentration of sites <br />and scale ofthe facilities." <br />Accordingly, the over-concentration of <br />. social services may lead to fewer positive <br />impacts for both residents and those seeking <br />social service programs, which is th-e op; <br />posite of the positive impacts expected from <br />efficiencies o(scale when like services are <br />provided in close proximity; Studies also indi- <br />cate that if the facilities are notproperly man- <br />aged and clients engage in illegal or offensive <br />behaviors, there will be negative impacts on <br />the neighborhood. .. <br />Thedegree of <;oncentration is an im- . <br />portaht factor to be weighed against consid- <br />erations of neeq, cost, and service efficiency.. <br />The Department of lust ice (DOl), the Depart- <br />ment of Housing and Urban D-eVelcipnient- <br />(HUD), and most courts that have addressed . <br />the issue of distance separation agree:that... <br />. density restrictions are gen~rally inconsistent <br /> <br /> <br />with the FHA. However, they also believe that <br />". . . if a neighborhood came to be largely. <br />composed of group homes, thatcould-ad- <br />versely affect individuals with disabilities <br />and would be inconsistent with the objective <br />of integrating persons with disabilities into <br />the community. . . a consideration of over- <br />concentration could be considered in this <br />context" (U.s. Department of lustice,1999). <br />Many courts, as well as DOl and HUD, which <br />funds many of the homeless programs, have <br />- acknowledged that concentrated social ser- <br />vice faCilities isolate disadvantaged people <br />both physically and socially from mainstream <br />society. The.difficulty, however, comes in . <br />defining a "quantitative threshold of over <br />.. concentration and in providing an objective <br /> <br />information base to assess the reality of com- <br />munity claims of saturation" (Weisberg 1993). <br /> <br />LOCAL REGULATORY PRACTICES <br />Concerns over property values and secondary <br />impacts due to the location of social service <br />facilities have led many communities across <br />the United States and Canada to implement <br />various controls on what they consider to be <br />"controversial social service facilities." The <br />most commonly used regulations include <br />distance separations between like facilities, <br />limitations on the size of facilities, good <br />neighbor-manllge.ment plans, and population <br />ratios.. A Iimitl;!dnumberofjurisdictions have <br />implemented council use permits and manda- <br />tory licensing requirements. <br /> <br />ZONINGPRACTICE . 1.10 <br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Ipage 5 <br /> <br />81./ <br />~f~': <br /> <br />.....'.~ <br />